Ohio Equal Parenting

today we are going over the Supreme Court of Ohio's new guidelines that they posted regarding parents living apart and we are also going over and I can't pronounce the county very well but it's Tuscarawas county in Ohio their county courts adopted the guidelines but put their own spin on it I guess that's how you would say it so they they made their rules governing her parents time with their children based off of the guidelines that their supreme court published right so that's what we want to go over today we want to go over how do all of you feel about these guidelines hopefully you read them I did post them on my page so if you did not have time

to read them go ahead and pull them up now you can find those at our website on our blog so that's fixed family courts calm / blog and that's plural courts with an S right so a lot of parents are out there pushing for equal parenting and Ohio's the first state that I actually have seen go this far where the Ohio County Court took Tuscarora Tuscarawas and I know you guys are laughing at me posted that if parents do not agree when their children are 3 to 13 years old then the parenting plan that they will put in place is an equal parenting plan right so how do you guys feel about that and I'm talking to the

people who are fighting for equal parenting do you feel that it's great it's giving you some reliability I mean that's how I kind of look at it and you know Ron and I I'm sherry Palmer by the way if you guys don't know we are constitutional scholars we study the case law to see how the case law interprets your constitutional rights and whether or not this the trial courts are following that which we do not find that most of those courts are following it they are not they are acting like super parents judges are and we're going to go over with you today why that's not a good thing some of you may think that that's

a benefit because you can go in and air your dirty laundry and perhaps get benefit but the problem is there's no guarantee so what we've been looking for is the guarantees that parents can depend on and children right this these cases affect children's rights what can they depend on so the Ohio courts this one at least like this County Court Tuscarawas Ohio decided they're gonna tell parents in advance what they can depend on and why did they do this not just because the Supreme Court issued a guideline because they said that's not the law they don't have to follow their guidebook then it's because more and more parents they say are pro se right

when I went over this with Ron yesterday he of course was saying well he thinks his thoughts are that it's not just because they're Jose it's because more of you guys are learning that your rights protect you from this unreliability unpredictability and you're you're arguing for your rights now so you're going in there you're pushing for something that they're not providing and that is causing these judges to have to respond to that to they're unconstitutional practice right so if you're not conceding and you're not tricked anymore now they got to follow the actual guidance from the constitutional guarantees or I should say the guidance from the Constitution they have to provide constitutional

guarantees or explain why they're not they don't like doing that so what they what it looks like this court is doing to try to respond to that is and may not be just in their Court they could see this happening throughout the United States so good job all of you who are putting our rights topics into action in your states and putting this kind of pressure on the states that's why they're updating their guidelines and rules it's because of the pressure that you're putting on them it's because you're educating yourself so this Court has said if parents don't agree we're gonna issue equal parenting plans and if you want to see it like I said go to my

blog and go to the bottom of the blog at fixed family courts dot-com slash blog it's the blog the most recent one I put up yesterday on Ohio equal parenting and click on that link that goes to the county court and if you go to page 3 of 8 on that rule they call it standard parenting order and rules governing companionship time so if you cannot find my blog put that into google standard parenting order and rules governing companionship time for Tuscarawas county ohio ok and go to page 3 of 8 at the very top it says children aged 3 to 13 it says beginning at the age of 3 the parents shall share equal parenting time

unless there are clearly defined special circumstances that would prevent them from doing so each parent is considered the residential parent when the child is with them unless the court order states otherwise if the parents cannot agree the following schedule shall be followed so several things there ok first notice the words are shall not we may not um we can that's super important right legally and by the way we're not attorneys okay and if I didn't say it my name is sherry Palmer I was six family courts and Ron Palmer provided me with his feedback because he can't be here right now he's doing some other work but we looked at this and we

read case law practically all day long except for when we're dancing so we've noticed even though we're not trained attorneys is that there's very specific words that courts will use that the justices and the appellate courts will use that the legislators will use in their laws and those have significant meaning so it will signal to a judge whether or not they have the option okay now of course the judge has the power in their court they can override things and if they do they just have to explain it so if they overrode something like this they'd have to give a pretty darn good reason this is pretty much locks them in they shall schedule this parenting plan

if the parents do not agree so two things right is this encouraging parents to come to an agreement the nice part is now if you're a parent where the other parents trying to attack you and take your rights you no longer have to feel uncomfortable that as soon as you enter that courtroom that all of a sudden you lose those rights so you don't feel like in that in that bargaining room if you're in mediation now that you're starting at an uneven uneven playing field right which is a fear driven response if you're in an mediation and you feel like if you end up in the court that judge is going to automatically be

biased against you or take your rights right away or you're gonna have to pay a ton of money to have those rights you might make agreements that you otherwise wouldn't make so now you've got an even playing field sort of and the reason I say sort of is I'm gonna go over that in a minute is that special circumstances word right and the fact that nowhere nowhere in these guides do they say and I'm talking to the supreme court guide and also these guidelines and rules from this County Court nowhere does it say that they have to follow the supreme law of the land now they do but they're still trying to ignore it so that's a

risk factor for you and keep that in mind is what that means is you still need to make sure that you keep constitutional language your rights language in whatever you do your pleadings your when you make orders make sure that they're enforceable make sure that you're preserving error okay so don't just rely on these plans so when the when you're in negotiations before court right if you're trying to avoid having to end up in court in the hearing now and most courts require mediation you now don't have to feel like you cannot push the other side too how do I want to put that you don't have to feel like they're just gonna steal

your rights as soon as you don't agree with them okay so you can actually hold your ground that's super important that's important for your child that's important for you now we've got some comments from some people or they didn't like this actually and I agree with whoever made that statement that this guide is a light security blanket that's true it's much better starting point than you had before though right so just the fact that they're recognizing that this is the starting point is huge it really is huge so let's start with some comments that like I said customer service can get on here I see Curtis you put a comment you think

the whole country needs to change for our children and the future of our country can't see the whole thing because of this other comment here okay children need their fathers and I'm just kind of skimming through it real quick Curtis your finances were taken away do probably yep that's a big problem Curtis and that's why I'm liking them starting from this point because if you didn't have to have the stress of worrying that you had to fight to get to the equal wouldn't it have been less expensive to begin with right maybe the other side wouldn't automatically assume that all they had to do was hold out and deny you as most of the courts what

they've been doing is oh well the other parent doesn't want it so you know we can't go with that that's been the problem and if your state has a standard possession order like ours where it's actually minimum time instead of maximum time that's a problem because they've just been issuing one parent the minimum time the other pair gets the maximum just because the two didn't agree that both parents should spend more time with the children so that's a problem hi Trish I see you on there howdy back Rob I agree I wish more counties would start doing this it looks like you said you're in Clermont County is that in Ohio because if you're in Ohio Rob just

take this Supreme Court Ohio guide over to the administration of your your county court and ask them and take the one from Tuscarawas as well and ask them to adopt it as their rules as well and Monica thanks for showing up and okay so you're the one who said it's a light security blanket but not a substitute for asserting your rights in words and in writing very true and Adam hi Adam I know you go on cjs feet a lot I haven't had the pleasure so welcome thank you for showing up and your comment let me back this up here your comment is in order to hold them accountable and learn know the law speak and assert it to the

judge okay so that's true that's true to a very large extent Adam it's the way you speak it to the judge those judges have massive power in the courtrooms so if you offend them they can punish you and your punishment unfortunately punishes your child so it's a very delicate thing to do when they have all that power so you want to make sure that you're doing it in ways that are less inflammatory to the judge so absolutely true assert it to the judge so that it is clear on the record that you're not conceding so if they are defining we're going to get to the next part here define special circumstances right so is

this an empty promise this equal parenting plan are they making it moot when they put special circumstances on there are they just saying they're gonna use best interest so now here's where we get the insecurities added back in here again and your cost going up right because anything in litigation when there's insecurity unpredictability that means you're gonna have to pay more money to protect that right okay first of all they're not recognizing this as a right they are seeing this as what they're calling parenting time that doesn't mean that they're saying this is a constitutional right so what happens here is they could insert as special circumstances best interest right that's very dangerous for you who want to be

able to make decisions that perhaps are not favorable to the judge because you're opened up to bias when the judge starts using best interest right they say they're looking out for the best interest of your child but we've seen a lot of errors occur by only applying that policy you need to insist that they apply some kind of risk reducing or error reducing tests right I'll give you an example if you're trying to introduce an expert witness so that you can counter some other testimony of another expert witness this actually happened in a case that I read and the judge is trying to evaluate whether or not that expert should be allowed to testify against the other

expert when maybe they didn't perform the evaluation or the study that produce that report that you might be trying to challenge right so let me put that in easier terms let's say you're in a hearing and you've got a child custody evaluator who wasn't favorable to you so they have testified that you should not have equal time with your child that they should keep in with the other parent or maybe they're testifying that they should slip custody to the other parent maybe you have primary and you want to challenge that investigation and that report well so you might bring your own expert in and the court the other side might be opposing your expert of

course they don't want their testimony countered with anything that the court would apply more weight to because your own testimony about it doesn't get as much weight as another expert and I know I'm introducing a lot of concepts so if you don't understand these concepts I encourage you to become a member of our online program where we have an online course and we're going to be introducing more videos every month in there many as we possibly can for twenty dollars a month you can get in start learning more about these concepts again from a layman's view we are not attorneys okay so please anything you've learned from this path run it by an attorney even if

you don't have one and make sure before you use anything you absolutely understand how that's going to be used legally as a term not how you understand it in English terms that doesn't mean crock in courts right the way the court interprets it you don't know how you can go to scholar google.com if you don't know how they're gonna use that look it up in cases and see how they interpret it okay there's a little bit of trick to that too and like I said we'll be sharing videos in that site to help you understand that as well like how are they how do you apply that term to your situation in your case is an

evaluation process alright so we'll be putting that in there but anyways let's get back to you're trying to counter that other expert witnesses report so you're trying to introduce an expert and the judge is trying to determine whether or not they should be introduced so they might use something let's just pull something out of how let's say they say oh well I'm gonna apply the Dalbert test right you guys can look that up that's d Auber t one judge actually did this I'm not gonna say whether it's right or wrong that they should have applied this particular test for this situation I'm not lawyer so you'd have to check with a lawyer on that but that's what

this judge decided to use why did this judge look for something to use before determining whether or not that expert should be allowed to testify he was trying to reduce error so in other words if he was wrong and gave the wrong if he didn't allow the expert to testify and didn't have any way to support it then maybe he could get overturned on appeal right and thank you for whoever listed dower on there I'm gonna guess it was Monica so thanks you guys for doing that if the judge is using a test to determine whether or not they should make a certain decision so that they're reducing the risk of error on that

decision don't you think your child deserves the same protection right and that would mean it shouldn't be unreasonable for you to ask the judge to provide a test regarding whether or not or regarding what process the judge will use for determining when the court gets to interfere with your rights to your child without being reasonable I don't think it should be an in fact we've read case law that says parental rights are fundamental right and you guys have probably seen those cases Troxel Stanley look them up they're all over the internet now they're all over scholar Google just things like public policies state policies like best interest that's very risky there are lots of error that is

produced from that so as for a Matthews test that's what I'm proposing here ask for a Matthews test and if you want to understand that further get into our our membership I don't have time to go over that today so that's the point I wanted to make today about the special circumstances section is are they making this equal parenting plan mood because if the other parent just goes in and says well apply these factors before determining whether or not this parent should have equal parenting then you can't count on the words at the end of that paragraph on this page of this rule for these courts if the parents cannot agree the following schedule shall be

followed you cannot depend on that okay so what I'm telling you is walk through these things like you would a math problem show your work like you would want the court to show it and that means once you really get down to it and the fine you're finally done with figuring out this math problem are they really providing you with the security of equal parenting I'd say probably not okay probably not and the only way you're going to correct this and cure this again is getting those rights in there if you want to be able to argue on appeal that they messed up I'm not giving you this plan because they said she'll because that's all

you're looking at you're not gonna be successful if you didn't protect your rights okay it's it's gonna be very disappointing to you so don't make that mistake okay so let's see what else others are saying six years of trying to rectify custody order and still wasn't even able to get 50/50 rights in Georgia yeah that's sorry to hear that Nick that is half all over the country and that's why it's so important that you do frame your case differently so you don't have to keep going back for modification after modification you got to go at this straight straight up first time you got to go at this by by saying I don't

concede to this and here's my rights here's what I want you to apply and you've got to object anytime that they're deciding to apply these lowered standards and lowered standards is preponderance applying special circumstances that aren't being applied under a proper adjudicative hearing that aren't using clear and convincing evidence now your statutes are going to say different your statutes are going to say they can use preponderance they can use best interest so you're gonna have to get an attorney who's very skilled at this or learn this yourself how'd you present this to the court in a way that you can uphold on appeal it you can't just go in and make it up by the

way you guys you can't just go in and say hey I said it I have rights now I'm gonna appeal you and I'm gonna get you overturned on and on appeal it's not gonna happen that way at all if the law was that simple these lawyers would not have to go to school for multiple years pay a hundred hundreds of thousands of dollars some of them pay two hundred thousand dollars we at this degree that's because this is technical English language is complicated hey don't blow that off again don't just apply your own meaning okay well I'm gonna look on another page here real quick guys because I want to make sure

that I go over some of the comments that we were seeing posted about the equal parenting and it's very interesting the responses that that I saw up there there were concerns about equal parenting not being a one fair to the children and I'm not sure I know most of you guys are going off of your own personal experience or maybe a friend's experience that's but really think about this is it fair to the children to not know if they're gonna lose a parent when this wasn't that it's not their divorce right is it fair to the children to have to go years and years of being unsure of which parent they're gonna be restricted to as

a visitor instead of them being a full parent in their life is it fair to take away that development okay so you may not like that other parent anymore you may not agree with their choices but you know what that's their child too so I'd like you to reevaluate where you're coming from when you make that comment about it not being fair to the child okay so I'm gonna look on here okay so I'm gonna go to fix family courts comm /blog and if you go to the bottom of it you'll see the comment that I'm gonna be reading so if you're one that is also visual and not auditory and you want to

follow along with me go to the blog page scroll down it looks like we have more comments on here now I only saw Anna's comment yesterday and hers was equal parenting is great if both parents are equally fit within reason and there is no doubt that there is not abuse of any kind that would threaten the well-being of the child especially children of the ages of three to seven she says they're vulnerable and they have little recourse to protect themselves from a parent in all appearances that parent might seem to be fit but may not be and so she thinks the law is flawed and she says it's flawed in the ability of the court to learn the

truth of whether or not a parent is fit to have primary care of the child especially one as young as three and four and it's limited and short-sighted and she says that both parents are fit they should be able to communicate with each other in a civil manner always in order maintain continuity of care and especially for those who are three and four and up to the age of seven and she says if the parents are socially and emotionally incapable dialoguing with each other that that's an important factor and that that factor should not be dismissed so I'm gonna have to say that there are several things that I'd like Anna to reevaluate here one is why where

is she getting that parents need to qualify just because they're living apart so all of a sudden they need to qualify for custody of their child that is not the way our rights in this country were actually supposed to work that is something that the courts have created out of their own cloth right they have not had any constitutional grounds that I can find no constitutional justification for making parents who are living apart qualified to have their rights protected to their child which is what protects that child so even if the child is a baby Anna the other parent is a parent you guys chose to have a baby together or whether be

oxygen or not what makes you more entitled and I'm not saying just you and I'm not meaning to be offensive but under seen a lot of times I do here come from moms I here come from dads where moms have taken off and left the child with them that's a different scenario okay a parent being absent intentionally or on their own of their own volition different topic okay but let's say you're both parents but what I hear is a lot of times because the mom birth the child they naturally have possession so they automatically feel like they are the one who will be protective and that the other parent won't I'm not really

sure where you're getting that from because they could look at you and say you didn't have any experience first time you had a child either you had to learn it so let that other child let that other parent learn it that child has a right for the other parent even the mistakes of the other parent that child has a right to learn from that parent mistakes and all flaws and all so I would have to disagree that that the child shouldn't be with that other parent and when you're saying that they don't have an ability to protect themselves from three to seven years old I found that as a problematic view when I went through it

it was it was actually very very abusive feeling to me from the courts to be saying that they were protecting the children from their parents that was a very foreign concept to me then and very hurtful very destructive actually so I'd ask you to reevaluate your view on that and and before you say that the children are vulnerable and have little recourse to protect themselves think about who you're saying you're protecting them from if you're saying you're protecting them from the other parent then why wouldn't that same premise be applied to you and why would you want to go through that kind of evaluation process you're not going to be perfect either

at least I'm not being you up personally as I'm speaking in general okay I'm just responding to your comment that why would you think that it's okay or that the court is authorized to come into your private business like that they shouldn't be trying to protect children from their parents now when you come to the question of fitness you should not be questioning a parent's fitness unless they have violated child protection laws child abuse laws so my question would be to you why do you think different standards should apply to parents living apart right and the last thing Ana on your your comment is that you think that parents should have to be able to

communicate with each other in a civil manner now I would say civil manner that's that's nice that's preferable but if they decide they don't like each other they're probably not going to communicate with each other in a nice manner if that's what you mean like it they may not agree let's let's put it that way you know if they're being abusive and they're violating the law that's different you can get restrictions placed on well you can try to have charges brah if somebody's being abusive violating the law I don't like just so you know where I'm coming from and where this feedback is coming from for full disclosure I do not like most standing orders in states that

place prior restraints on parents communications or any kind of gag orders I do not like those those are unconstitutional and when I say do not like what I'm saying not personal opinion I'm saying from a constitutional viewpoint is that constitutionally speaking you are guaranteed to have a right to communicate in the way that you choose now if there's a law that states what the way you communicate is illegal then you may just face consequences I don't like this future-looking type of order that says I'm gonna put in an order that protect late that almost makes this something you've already violated so I'm gonna put the penalty in there right that's not okay okay but

constitutionally that is not okay that is called a prior restraint or gag order when they tell parents they can't communicate certain things if somebody's going to abuse there prove their right to speak and they're gonna do it in a manner that is not conducive to the other side of green but they're gonna be abusive in it and it violates a law then like I said bring charges but if they're gonna communicate in a way that just is disagreeable with the other side and they're not to be depending on how you're defining a civil if you meaning be nice to the other parent well you know what that's their choice they don't want to be nice maybe then they don't

get agreement right but not a green in itself for most for many of the circumstances meaning whether or not the other side gets equal time is not a notice should not be grounds for the parent having less time right so I know the courts a lot of courts use it in fact Monica that happened in your circumstance you know they're looking at you as a high conflict parent and taking away I'm gonna say your child's right to be with you okay there are some people complaining we're just looking at you know a lot of people are looking at parental rights not child's rights those are the children's rights so you protecting your right is

protecting that child so again you guys need to review how you're looking at this because you might be starting from the wrong basis or foundation so I would have to say Anna not getting along evaluating people on their social and emotional capability to dialogue is not allowed constitutionally I would say that's not an important factor if people want to communicate and get along they will part of the reason you guys aren't together anymore and your parents living apart is because you don't get along because you might not have the capability but you know what they may not have had that capability when you guys had the child together so why would you hold them to different standards

that would be the bottom line for me on your comment let's go to the next one and we've got a quickly here the first one was from brandy and her comment was they can still have access to both parents without moving homes and disrupting their routines every other week and she said if one hump provides more love support and stability for them why can't they stay there why do they have to leave that home and although the second parent does love them maybe they don't have family around I mean they may work a lot leave the child alone or with a babysitter the majority of the time they may have their own rooms and own

space with their favorite toys at one house not the other I'm not gonna read our whole comment I'm just giving you some of the questions as she says everything should be taken by case-by-case basis and thoroughly researched every family dynamic she says is very different and intricate needs to be thought of before making decisions that affect these kids futures like this okay so brandy I'm gonna give you a little bit of the same feedback I gave Ana and then I'll answer address more of what you're asking and some of that feedback is I'd like you to reevaluate where you're starting from to say that they need to evaluate each home to say that the homes need to provide

more than the basic necessities I would say is I would say is not a constitutional that's not the foundation that you start with for a constitutional evaluation the foundation you start with is is the child being provided with their basic needs from both homes and that would be food clothing a roof over their head not who has the nicer bed whether or not the child sleeps on the couch at one home or the other you you're stating that some instances the child sleeps on the floor I know some kids that prefer air mattresses or or their sleeping bag on the floor so who knows if they're sleeping on the floor because they want to or not or maybe the

other parents in transition if you're saying they don't have basic needs and they don't have their blanket in their pillow or or you know that they're not getting basic needs and and I'd say it you know basic sleeping area would be basic needs so you might have a complaint if they're on the floor because there is nowhere else for them to go but it I hesitate a little bit I'd say okay that might be the beginning of some kind of complaint but look at your child abuse laws would that would that qualify okay if that would qualify and apply to everybody the reason I'm hesitating is what a married parent have their child taken away because the child

sleeping on the floor why is that so so there may be some details there but also remember where before you start invading the privacy of a parent's home you've got to have some kind of proper cause of action and I know the family courts allow it so remember we're not speaking in terms of what statutes are gonna let you do they're gonna let you guys fight over every one little one of these details but we're trying to start thinking about this differently so those fights will stop those fights are very damaging to your child as it looks looks like the feed had been lost for a brief moment but we're back so what I'm saying is before you start

using things against the other parent that maybe wouldn't be used against them in a marriage make sure that it's something that is going to qualify under a child to be a standard and not just under the policy of the state because you know what I've seen a lot of parents who call themselves protective parents and have the courts flip on them because they go in there and they insist that this is bad or damaging for their child but what ends up happening is the courts look at what's more damaging to them is it more damaging them to sleep in a less preferable place or to lose a parent like you said that parent may love them

so maybe they're poor and last time I looked you weren't really allowed to take a child away from somebody who's poor it only seems to happen in these cases in divorce or cases where someone's establishing their parentage their paternity right I only seem to see it used there and I would have to say that if they fought that properly then it's not going to stand up for that court because they're taking their child away from them based on poverty okay so the other thing that you're stating is why can't a child stay in a home that provides you're saying more love support stability okay that is asking the judge to be a super parent right what is he

using to evaluate more love how do you define that in the law more love support and stability what is that required to be a parent maybe more maybe one parent defines it one way and the other parent may define love as as restricting their child from certain things so I would have to say that that's - that's that's not a reasonable thing to have the court review because that's going to continue and perpetuate this unpredictability and unpredictability in our courts is bad it's bad for your children it's bad for society so I would say that's the wrong print or that's not the proper way that I would want to present something to a

court if I were you it leaves them very in control and if you want to have control over what your life is going to be like in the future and your child you probably don't want to put some kind of question in front of them that's going to require them to use their own beliefs and their own prejudices and apply their own definition to something so why can't they stay in that home just that home brandy is because that is more detrimental to the child than being with a parent the other parent regardless of their flaws and if you need more studies and information on that we have other blogs that talk about that you can

research on Google that they'll talk about the detrimental effects of soul parenting i I don't like to apply it to whether it's the mom or the dad damaging the child I think it's the soul parenting does that mean a sole parent can't raise a very healthy effective child no that doesn't mean that because some parents pass away so it's rude in my opinion to think or state that a soul parent raising a child is what the problem is the problem is when a parent is made a sole parent and a another parent who is adequate has been cut out of that child's life that child doesn't understand that and they are being

deprived deprived of the other parents clause if you want to put it that way but I'm sorry that life is made of flaws okay some flaws could end up end up resulting in beautiful things some mistakes end up resulting in beautiful things so putting your own judgment on it is a problem that's why I like constitutional foundation and guarantees and that's why I like tests that lower the error of these risks it doesn't leave room for more love or support for the law to decide that one parents love or support is better than the other ones okay so I would I would have to disagree with that kind of thing being of that

kind of question being put in front of a judge so they can't stay in just one home they don't stay in just one school they don't stay with just one teacher when you put them in different activities they get different sets of rules so please reevaluate what you think is harmful or damaging to your child having differences in people's lives in different sets of rules of different homes I raised my children that way they're happy healthy productive children it's not the kind of damaging effect that you may think some children are little more sensitive than others so there may be some special things for special-needs kids that you may need to do but other than that even

special-needs kids can deal with some some some stresses right there are stresses in life without them you you're gonna curl up in a corner if you don't know how to deal with some of them so it does you do have to balance and manage just like we're asking you to balance the way you view the these things you're asking the court to balance the way they are treating fundamental rights okay so it's all about taking the emotions out of it a little bit and getting a predictable foundation in place and then you know what you may find to that other parent may start being more workable when the threat is removed we find that

a lot that sometimes people are just being forced to each other and and really more combative when they think they can get a court to side with them it becomes like a competition and the court starts to use that when actually in actuality it's the process it's the adversarial system that's really caused a lot of that problem okay so I'm gonna go to the next question and I'm we're gonna have to finish up because looks like we're kind of out of time I think we're out of time so I can't address any more today I apologize I hope that this helps everyone who's expressing concern about these equal provisions that are starting to make headway and starting to

make progress we from a constitutional perspective are very happy the judges are starting to recognize in Ohio that there is the necessity to provide some more predictability for the children and we're the parents I think they're gonna see a lot less conflict if they do one more additional thing that is take that special circumstances and define it in a constitutional way that would be my recommendation for anyone in Ohio who is continuing don't drop it here with your Supreme Court of Ohio or with your legislators go back to them and say there's gonna be some issues we need some clarifications here and when you provide clarifications provide them with constitutional protections that is how

you're gonna protect your child that is how you're going to protect your dreams their dreams your resources and how you're gonna be able to move forward in life and move beyond this divorce beyond the fact that two of your living apart and put your focus back on developing your child so I wish you all the best and I hope this hubs and I look forward to more states moving in the right direction like this one and thanks guys so much for joining me today now I'm gonna have to run but I really do appreciate all of you thank you so much bye talk to you later [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music]