HB232 update

[PACE]

I recieved the following message last night form a friend in Columbus. It is time to hammer your represenatives on HB232 to make them rethink this decision.
I helped to write HB232 and I will be D***ed if I am going to let it die so that every parent in this state can be raped by the judges and lawyers.



EARLIER TODAY FROM A DEFINITIVE SOURCE, IT WAS DISCLOSED TO ME AT THE STATEHOUSE THAT THE OHIO DOMESTIC JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND THE OHIO TRIAL LAWYER'S ASSOCIATION (this organization represents your Ohio divorce lawyer by-the-way) HAVE SUCCESSFULLY LOBBIED THE JUVENILE AND FAMILY LAW COMMITTEE TO LET HB232 DIE IN COMMITTEE, AS IT IS PROPOSED.
 
IN FACT, THE DISCLOSURE WAS THAT THE 2 ASSOCIATIONS' EFFORTS WERE INTENSE, REPEATED AND MAGNIFIED TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS BILL NEVER LEFT COMMITTEE.  AND IT WAS DISCLOSED THAT THE ASSOCIATIONS WERE ONLY WILLING TO DISCUSS THE OHIO TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM SEVERAL YEARS AGO WITH THE CAVEAT THAT EVEN THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE TOO BROAD (for the layman in the audience  that means that it would not change much more than it is today even if they totally modified the present legislation, which they are not willing to do at the moment, although they made some indication that the judges association would put forth some points of discussion in February-which will be essentially worthless and meaningless due to time constraints).
 
FURTHERMORE,    THIS INDIVIDUAL AGREED THAT UNLESS THE GALLUZZO FEDERAL CASE FORCES CHANGE, THE CURRENT LAW WILL PROBABLY REMAIN INTACT AND IT WAS DISCLOSED THAT IT WAS EXTREMELY UNLIKELY THAT ANY CHANGES WOULD BE MADE BEFORE THE END OF SESSION.
 
ALL OF THE ABOVE CAME FROM AN INSIDE AND REPUTABLE SOURCE IN THE LEGISLATURE, BUT I ADD THAT SUCH DISCLOSURE WAS MADE WITH GREAT REGRET THAT HB 232 IS A DEAD BILL.
 
THIS INDIVIDUAL ADDED THAT THE ONLY WAY TO ATTEMPT TO REVIVE IT (AND THIS MUST BE DONE IMMEDIATELY AND IN VOLUME) IS TO LOBBY THE ACTUAL MEMBERS OF THE JUVENILE AND FAMILY LAW COMMITTEE RELENTLESSLY ON THE ISSUES RAISED PURSUANT TO GALLUZZO AND PLACE THE EMPHASIS ON THE FACT THAT A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION OF LEGAL CUSTODY IS THE ISSUE THAT REQUIRES A FINDING OF PARENTAL UNFITNESS BEFORE IT CAN BE DEPRIVED.
 
THE APPARENT UNDERLYING ISSUE REVOLVES PRIMARILY AROUND THE EFFECTS THAT SUCH A CHANGE WOULD HAVE ON CHILD SUPPORT DOLLARS HELD AS HOSTAGE FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL COMPUTER SYSTEM/WELFARE REFORM ACT (JUDGES ASSOCIATION) AND THE IMPACT ON THE EMPLOYMENT OF PROFESSIONALS THAT DERIVE THEIR INCOMES FROM THIS INDUSTRY (TRIAL LAWYERS STANCE).
 
Chuck Evans
Columbus, Ohio


=========================================
Visit PACE on line at:  //www.PACEgroup.org
=========================================

[doood]

this is not good.