Franklin County Attorney Shayla Favor speaks with the Ohio House of Representatives Committee on Children and Human Services about the committee’s consideration of child welfare fraud statutes. Favor also said she wants to correct erroneous statements made by the bill’s legislative sponsor regarding child welfare fraud rates, or lack thereof, in Franklin County. Screenshot courtesy of Ohio Channel
An Ohio prosecutor personally came to an Ohio House committee to oppose the child welfare fraud bill and clarify allegations of child welfare fraud made by legislators.
Franklin County Attorney Shayla Favor has spoken out against provisions in Ohio House Bill 649 that would transfer authority for all child welfare fraud investigations to the Ohio Attorney General’s Office. But she also spoke directly to one of the bill’s sponsors, state Rep. Josh Williams, R-Sylvania Twp. According to Favor, during a previous hearing on the bill, Williams suggested that the county clerk’s office was “not willing” to prosecute child welfare fraud.
“This characterization is simply inaccurate,” Favor told the Ohio House of Representatives Committee on Children and Human Services. “And I believe this committee deserves a clear understanding of the facts.”
She said her office has never rejected or declined to pursue a child welfare fraud case, especially since no such cases were referred to her office in 2025.
“Representative Williams’ testimony is missing an important fact: a prosecutor cannot bring charges that the prosecutor never received,” Favor said.
HB 649 is one of several bills currently being considered by the General Assembly in response to national headlines regarding Minnesota’s child welfare system. The Trump administration has set its sights on Minnesota after a right-wing social media influencer posted remarks about child welfare fraud, particularly at facilities run by Somali immigrants. After the claims surfaced, Trump and other leaders called for a freeze on federal child care funding for the state and other Democratic-led states such as California.
Ohio leaders, including Gov. Mike DeWine, were quick to say that Ohio’s publicly funded child care program meets strict standards and that review processes are already advanced, if not getting stronger. Statistics from the Ohio Department of Children and Youth Services show that while there were hundreds of referrals – or unverified complaints – last year, very few resulted in facility closures or fraud charges.
In 2025, the department received 124 reports, of which 100 did not reach the level of intent to commit fraud. While “corrective action” was taken for 70 people, ranging from technical assistance to cash repayment, the department said 30 others required no further action.
The remaining 24 facilities were removed from state agreements that allowed them to receive state child care funds, but were not ordered to close.
from there Republican legislators stepped in with bills offering a variety of methods to boost verification to demonstrate that children are attending centers and settings are using funds appropriately.
Although one such bill, Ohio House Bill 647, was publicly supported by Ohio Department of Children and Youth Services Director Kara Wente at a press conference and in supporting testimony, when the bill began to be considered by a House committee, HB 649 did not receive the same level of support.
HB 649 also faced criticism after Williams insisted that the bill include the exploit of a child’s photo instead of a parent’s photo to check attendance. Committee members disagreed with this provision when the bill was introduced, expressing safety concerns.
Williams and his co-sponsor, state Rep. DJ Swearingen, R-Huron, spent time in their testimony criticizing the state Department of Children and Youth Services, with Williams claiming that the sharing of child welfare fraud reporting reports with him was not limpid. The agency told the Capital Journal it shared everything it could, but did not provide any information to avoid disclosing the identifying information of facilities that had not been found to have committed any wrongdoing.
Still, given the circumscribed information Williams was able to receive, “I can say that DCY is not doing a good job of handling the investigation,” he said in February.
For this reason, his bill states that cases should be referred to the Ohio State Auditor’s Office and then to the Ohio Attorney General’s Office after a “initial investigation” by that department.
The department-backed bill, HB 649, would also bypass district attorneys’ offices, which the bill’s co-sponsor, state Rep. Tom Young, R-Washington Twp., said would be an “important step” toward speeding up the process.
Last week, Favor told the committee that centralizing prosecutions at the attorney general level “introduces friction that doesn’t exist locally.”
“We wholeheartedly oppose any elimination of our authority to prosecute these cases because there has been no evidence in Franklin County, and in my opinion massive evidence across the state, that would prematurely require all of you to do so,” Favor said.
She again pointed to Williams’ comments, saying local prosecutors were not willing to “actively pursue” a fraud case. The Franklin County prosecutor said that’s just not how it works.
“More importantly, there is no evidence that district attorneys are unwilling to pursue these cases or would treat them any differently than any other fraud case, so there is no justification for stripping us of this authority,” Favor said.
Republican lawmakers on the committee, including state Rep. Gary Click, R-Vickery, pushed back against Favors’ claims about the lack of verified cases of child welfare fraud in Franklin County, saying it may be other agencies holding up the investigation.
“My understanding is… there were people who were doing some of these studies, but the county commissioners basically accused them of discriminating against a certain population of people,” Click said to Favor.
Favor reiterated that information about alleged child welfare fraud that the office is aware of comes from sponsors who spoke at a previous hearing on the bill, not from any referrals from any official investigation.
“With all due respect to my county commissioners, they don’t have the authority to do this,” Favor said.
State Rep. Andrea White, R-Kettering, chairwoman of the Children and Human Services Committee, said while she understands the importance of local prosecutors, “at the same time… it’s the state that cares about the integrity of the program.”
“I think the sponsors of both bills and others are looking for a middle ground,” White said. “It’s not about the attorney general taking over or that a local entity will have exclusive (jurisdiction).”
At last week’s meeting, amendments were submitted to both bills and they were adopted without any objections. HB 647 now includes language that eliminates “backdating” a child’s attendance record – that is, entering a child’s attendance retroactively into a facility’s history – within seven days of receiving funds for publicly funded child care. Exceptions to this provision would include verified exemptions, such as for parents participating in education or workforce training.
The amendment introduced to HB 649 would create attendance verification standards in state law and prohibit the Department of Children and Youth Services from retaining photos or videos used for attendance verification purposes.
The committee is to deal with the draft laws at the next meeting, which will be held on March 24.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.
