Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2151.414

Section 2151.414 does not require a juvenile court to find that an agency made good faith efforts to implement a reunification plan before granting permanent custody.

In Re Noe, Unpublished Decision (7-21-1997) · filed 1997-07-21(A)

Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (A), a juvenile court need not find that the agency seeking permanent custody of a child has made good faith efforts to implement a reunification plan for the child and his or her parents.

Division (E)(1)'s reasonable-efforts inquiry asks whether the agency did enough to satisfy reasonableness, not whether it could have done more.

In re J.H. · filed 2020-01-24(E)(1)

The issue in a reasonable-efforts determination is not whether the agency could have done more, but whether it did enough to satisfy the reasonableness standard in R.C. 2151.414(E)(1).

Division (E)(1)'s reasonable-efforts inquiry is limited to the agency's efforts toward the parents, not toward a child's paternal great-grandparent.

In re I.H. · filed 2020-10-09(E)(1)

We find the plain language of R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) is limited to reviewing appellee’s reasonable efforts towards the parents, not the child’s paternal great-grandmother.

Section 2151.414 requires a juvenile court deciding permanent custody to find by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and that a statutory condition supports placing the child permanently with the agency, while considering the relevant best-interest factors.

In the Matter of Haywood, Unpublished Decision (5-9-2000) · filed 2000-05-09(B)(1)-(3), (D), and (E)(1), (4), and (9)

A trial court conducting a hearing on a motion for permanent custody must follow the guidelines set forth in R.C. 2151.414 . Pursuant to R.C. 2151.353 (A)(4), the court may grant such a motion if two determinations are made. The court must determine by clear and convincing evidence, after a child has been found by the court to be neglected, dependent, or abused, that it is in the child's best interest to grant the movant permanent custody "and that any of the following apply: (1) The child is not abandoned or orphaned and the child cannot be placed with either of his parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with his parents; (2) The child is abandoned and the parents cannot be located; (3) The child is orphaned and there are no relatives of the child who are able to take permanent custody." R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1) through (3).

Section 2151.414 normally governs a permanent-custody proceeding when the children were already adjudged abused, neglected, or dependent, but it does not apply when that adjudication was only as to other parents and the proceeding is original as to the biological parent.

Garabrandt v. Lucas County Children Services Board · filed 1988-04-15

R.C. 2151.353 is applicable to appellant rather than R.C. 2151.414 even though these children had been adjudged abused, neglected and/or dependent prior to the filing of the permanent custody complaint, a situation which normally requires application of R.C. 2151.414. However, in this case, the children’s state of abuse, neglect and/or dependency had previously been determined only as to Brenda and Donald Garabrandt and not as to appellant, David Garabrandt. The permanent custody hearing was original as to David Garabrandt, as he had never been named a party to any prior court proceedings affecting these children and their parents’ rights.

The revised version of § 2151.414 governs a permanent-custody motion filed after its January 1, 1989 effective date.

In re Barber · filed 1990-05-16

Effective January 1,1989, the procedure for termination of parental rights; vis-a-vis the respective responsibility of the government and parents was substantially changed. 142 v.s. 89, effective 1/1/89. This motion for permanent custody was filed in March, 1989, and the revised provisions of R.C. 2151.414 apply.

Section 2151.414(D) and (E) require the court, before awarding permanent custody under § 2151.353, to determine that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent.

In Re Kutzli · filed 1991-04-09(D), (E)

R.C. 2151.353 allows permanent custody of a child who has been adjudicated an abused child to be made upon (1) the determination, in accordance with R.C. 2151.414(E), that the child “cannot be placed with one of his parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent”; and (2) the determination, in accordance with R.C. 2151.414(D), that “the permanent commitment is in the best interest of the child.”

Section 2151.414 requires only one hearing on a motion to convert temporary custody to permanent custody, and that hearing must be adjudicatory in nature.

In Re Hopkins · filed 1992-01-15(A)

Neither Juv.R. 2(1) nor R.C. 2151.35 requires bifurcation to properly rule on a motion for permanent custody. What they do require is that the hearing be adjudicatory in nature in that the more lenient evidentiary and due process procedures available in a dispositional hearing are not available here. For example, R.C. 2151.35(B), which applies to dispositional hearings, allows relaxed evidentiary rules and limited cross-examination. The hearing under R.C. 2151.414 is to be adjudicatory in nature, because parental rights may be terminated. Accordingly, it would be inappropriate to allow such a decision to be made under the less formal procedure followed at other dispositional hearings. ... In short, we hold that upon a motion under R.C. 2151.413 to convert temporary custody to permanent custody, the court need hold only one hearing, which will be adjudicatory in its procedural nature to determine if it is in the child’s best interest to do so. This conclusion is further bolstered by R.C. 2151.414’s numerous references to “a hearing,” see R.C. 2151.414(A), (D), (E), and “the hearing,” see R.C. 2151.414(B).

Section 2151.414 requires exacting guidelines to be followed when determining whether a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time, and requires clear and convincing evidence to support permanently removing children from parental custody.

In Re Robinson, Unpublished Decision (2-9-1998) · filed 1998-02-09

In this regard, and since the permanent deprivation of parental rights is such an extreme measure, the General Assembly has provided exacting guidelines for determining whether a child cannot be placed with either of his parents within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with such parents. R.C. 2151.414 . See In re William S. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 95 . Furthermore, an order permanently removing children from the custody of their parents must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. R.C. 2151.414 . See In re Weaver (1992), 79 Ohio App.3d 59 .

Section 2151.414(E)(1) requires the trial court to consider the listed factors when deciding whether a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parents.

In the Matter of Eddy, Unpublished Decision (10-2-1998) · filed 1998-10-02(E)(1)

However, in addition to the best interest determination, the trial court must also consider the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1).

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing proof of a qualifying parental condition and consideration of the child's best interests before permanent custody may be awarded.

Matter of Jones, Unpublished Decision (12-14-1998) · filed 1998-12-14(D), (E)

R.C. 2151.353 (A)(4) sets forth the procedure to be followed and the standard to be applied in cases where a children services agency's original complaint requests permanent custody of an abused, neglected or dependent child. In re Pachin (1988), 50 Ohio App.3d 44 ; In the Matter of Skaggs, supra . R.C. 2151.353 (A)(4) provides that the court can commit a child adjudged dependent, neglected or abused to the permanent custody of a public children services agency if it makes the determinations required under R.C. 2151.414 . The agency must offer clear and convincing evidence to establish that one or more of the conditions listed in R.C. 2151.414 (E) exists as to each of the child's parents. If, after considering all of the relevant evidence, the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that one or more of the conditions listed in R.C. 2151.414 (E) exists, the court can and must enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with either of his or her parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with his or her parents. Finally, under R.C. 2151.414 (D), a juvenile court must consider the best interests of the child by examining factors relevant to that case. Only if these requisites are supported by clear and convincing evidence can a juvenile court terminate the rights of a natural parent and award permanent custody of a child to a children services agency. In re William S. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 95 .

Before the September 1996 amendment, § 2151.414 motions were subject to a seven-day disposition deadline, and that deadline was directory rather than mandatory.

In re Davis · filed 1999-03-03(A)

The issue certified to this court is “whether the seven-day limit within which a juvenile court must enter its disposition of a child adjudicated as abused, neglected or dependent under R.C. 2151.35 also applies to motions filed by an agency under R.C. 2151.414 prior to the September 1996 amendment to that statute.” We find that the seven-day limit does apply but that it is directory, not mandatory, and that either party may seek to enforce the statutory time requirement through a writ of procedendo.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) permits permanent custody when a child has been in an agency’s temporary custody for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period.

In Re ross/wright, Unpublished Decision (7-10-2000) · filed 2000-07-10(B)(1)(d)

Appellant's First Assignment of Error challenges the juvenile court's decision, under R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d), that the minor children could not be placed with her within a reasonable period of time. ... (d) The child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period ending on or after March 18, 1999. ... The fact that the children have been in long term foster care since 1995 is sufficient to grant permanent custody to the Agency.

Section 2151.414 requires a juvenile court deciding an agency's permanent-custody motion to apply the statutory clear-and-convincing-evidence standard, make the required placement finding, and consider the child's best interests before terminating parental rights.

In the Matter of Charles S, Unpublished Decision (7-28-2000) · filed 2000-07-28

R.C. 2151.414 sets forth the procedure to be followed and standard to be applied in cases where a children services agency moves for permanent custody of an abused, neglected or dependent child. In re Amanda W. (1997), 124 Ohio App.3d 136 , 141-142 . The agency must offer clear and convincing evidence to establish that one or more of the conditions listed in R.C. 2151.414 (E) exists as to each of the child's parents. In re William S. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 95 , syllabus. If the court determines that one or more of the conditions listed in R.C. 2151.414 (E) exists, the court can and must enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with either of his or her parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with his or her parents. R.C. 2151.414 (E). Finally, under R.C. 2151.414 (D), a juvenile court must consider the best interests of the child by examining factors relevant to that case. Only then can the court terminate the rights of a natural parent and award permanent custody of a child to a children services agency. In re William S. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d at 99 .

Section 2151.414(E)(4) requires a finding that a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time when the parent has shown a lack of commitment through inadequate support, visitation, or communication, or through unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home.

In Re McCrary · filed 1991-08-19(E)(4)

In pertinent part, R.C. 2151.414(E)(4) states that an entry finding that a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time shall be ordered if “[t]he parent has demonstrated a lack of commitment towards the child by failing to regularly support, visit, or communicate with the child when able to do so, or by actions showing an unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home for the child.”

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence of a listed parental condition before a court may find that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent and award permanent custody, while also requiring consideration of the child’s best interest.

In Re Amanda W. · filed 1997-11-21(E)(1)

At a hearing on the motion, the agency must offer clear and convincing evidence to establish that one or more of the conditions listed in R.C. 2151.414(E) exists as to each of the child’s parents. If, after considering all the relevant evidence, the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that one or more of the conditions listed in R.C. 2151.414(E) exists, the court can and must enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with either of his or her parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with his or her parents. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1). Finally, under R.C. 2151.414(D), a juvenile court must consider the best interest of the child by examining factors relevant to that case.

Section 2151.414(B)(3) requires consideration of relatives as permanent custodians only when the child is orphaned.

Matter Of: Wood, Unpublished Decision (6-28-1999) · filed 1999-06-28(B)(3)

Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B) (3), relatives only need to be considered in a permanent custody proceeding if the child is orphaned.

Section 2151.414 permits a court to terminate parental rights and grant an agency permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence shows that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

Matter of Kinstle, Unpublished Decision (2-12-1999) · filed 1999-02-12(B), (D)(4), and (E)(1), (4), (9), and (12)

A court may terminate parental rights and grant permanent custody to an agency if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interests of the child and the child cannot be placed with either of the parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either of the parents.

Section 2151.414(E) sets forth procedures for permanent-custody actions by a public children services agency or a private child placing agency with temporary custody.

Matter of Diedra Renee R., Unpublished Decision (3-12-1999) · filed 1999-03-12(E)

Appellant's reliance upon this case and the factors cited in R.C. 2151.414 (E) is misplaced, however, because that statutory section sets forth the procedures to be used in an action for permanent custody of a child by a public children services agency or private child placing agency with temporary custody.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) requires clear and convincing findings that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, based on the analyses required by subsections (D) and (E).

In Re Stevens, Unpublished Decision (9-25-2000) · filed 2000-09-25(B)(1)

While appellant proffered her argument as to the order of the requisite determinations when terminating parental rights, we find that under the two-prong test created by R.C. 2151.414 (B), what is required is that the court find by clear and convincing evidence that granting permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414 (D), and that the children cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with their parents, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414 (E).

Section 2151.414(B) requires proof that permanent custody is in the child’s best interest and that a statutory placement condition applies.

In Re Morris, Unpublished Decision (4-9-2001) · filed 2001-04-09(B)

In order for a court to grant permanent custody of a child to the State, the State must prove: that it is the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody of the child and that any of the following apply: (1) The child is not abandoned or orphaned and the child cannot be placed with either of the child's parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child's parents; (2) The child is abandoned and cannot be located; (3) The child is orphaned and there are no relatives of the child who are able to take permanent custody. R.C. 2151.414 (B).

Section 2151.414(B)(1) and (E) may be satisfied by knowing, intelligent, voluntary stipulations to the required findings, which in this context also encompass reasonable and diligent agency efforts.

In the Matter of Starr J., Unpublished Decision (4-20-2001) · filed 2001-04-20(B)(1), (E)

There is nothing in the record to suggest that the counseled stipulations that appellants made on the record and in open court were not knowing, intelligent and voluntary. ... The effect of these stipulations was the equivalent of an admission to the required findings of R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1) and (E). In this context, a finding that R.C. 2151.414 (E) is satisfied necessarily encompasses a finding that appellee made reasonable and diligent efforts to assist the parents to remedy the problems which caused the child to be placed outside the home.

Section 2151.414 permits permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence shows that the children cannot or should not be placed with their parents within a reasonable time.

In Re Hayes, Unpublished Decision (4-19-2002) · filed 2002-04-19

R.C. 2151.414 provides the trial court may award permanent custody to DHS if it finds by clear and convincing evidence the children cannot be placed with the parents within a reasonable time, or should not be placed with them.

A permanent-custody motion is not defective merely because the children had not yet met the twelve-of-twenty-two-month threshold when the motion was filed if another pleaded and proven ground independently supports custody under section 2151.414(B)(1)(a).

In the Matter of Meadows, Unpublished Decision (6-24-2002) · filed 2002-06-24(B)(1)(a), (B)(1)(d)

However, this fact does not render WCCSB's motion defective nor does it mean that the trial court erred in granting WCCSB's permanent custody motion. In its motion, WCCSB also alleged that Shane and Kyle cannot and should not be placed with any of their parents within a reasonable time. The trial court specifically found, by clear and convincing evidence presented at the permanent custody hearing, that the children cannot and should not be placed with appellant within a reasonable time. Thus, the trial court's granting of permanent custody to WCCSB, though arguably not proper under R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d), was proper under R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a).

A parent's agreement that permanent placement elsewhere serves the child's best interest is only evidence for the court to weigh, and the court need not conduct a plea-style colloquy before accepting it or entering a section 2151.414 permanent-custody order.

In Re Lakes · filed 2002-08-02

The court was not required to engage in a colloquy with Mrs. Lakes similar to that required by Juv.R. 29(D) or Crim.R. 11(C) before it either accepted her admission or entered its order.

Section 2151.414 permits permanent custody only upon clear and convincing evidence that custody serves the child's best interest and the child has spent at least twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period in agency custody, with the child's relationships, wishes, custodial history, and need for permanent placement among the best-interest factors.

In Re Graham, Unpublished Decision (8-2-2002) · filed 2002-08-02(B), (D)

A juvenile court may terminate parental rights and grant permanent custody to an agency if it finds the following by clear and convincing evidence: (1) it is in the best interest of the child; and (2) the child has been in the temporary custody of a children services agency for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period which ends on or after March 18, 1999. ... These factors include: (1) the interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's family and others; (2) the wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the child or through the child's guardian ad litem; (3) the custodial history of the child; and (4) the child's need for a legally secure permanent placement.

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing proof of at least one subsection (E) factor before finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent, plus a best-interest determination based on all relevant subsection (D) factors.

In Re Mack · filed 2002-08-15(B)(2), (D), (E)

The court must determine by clear and convincing evidence that one or more of the sixteen factors listed in R.C. 2151.414(E) exist in order to find that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. ... In addition, the court must determine that permanent custody is in the best interest of the child by considering all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the five factors listed in R.C. 2151.414(D).

When a child is abandoned, subsection (B)(1)(b) does not require a determination that the child cannot or should not be reunified with either parent, regardless of how long the child was in temporary custody.

In Re Starkey · filed 2002-12-11(B)(1)(b)

More important, if the child is abandoned, then the court likewise need not make the reunification determination, regardless of temporary custody. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(b).

Permanent custody requires clear and convincing evidence both of a condition enumerated in subsection (B)(1) and that permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In the Matter of Sarah S., Unpublished Decision (8-11-2003) · filed 2003-08-11(B)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 sets forth a two-prong analysis to be applied by the juvenile court for a determination of whether permanent custody should be granted to an agency. The statute requires the court to find, by clear and convincing evidence, (1) the existence of one of the factors enumerated in (B)(1), and (2) an award of permanent custody to be in the best interest of the child.

Permanent custody requires clear and convincing evidence both of a section 2151.414(B) qualifying circumstance, including a section 2151.414(E) inability-to-place finding, and that permanent custody is in the child's best interest under section 2151.414(D).

In the Matter of Ebenschweiger, Unpublished Decision (11-10-2003) · filed 2003-11-10(B), (D), (E)

Before a trial court can terminate parental rights and award permanent custody of the child to an agency, it must satisfy two statutory factors by clear and convincing evidence: (1) that the child is abandoned, orphaned, has been in the temporary custody of the agency for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, or that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent, based on the factors of R.C. 2151.414 (E); and (2) the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child, utilizing, in part, the factors of R.C. 2151.414 (D).

The inability-to-place finding and the twelve-of-twenty-two-month custody finding are alternative statutory grounds, either of which can support permanent custody when supported by the evidence.

In Re Mikayla, Unpublished Decision (11-17-2003) · filed 2003-11-17(B)(1)(a), (d)

Those findings are alternate findings under R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1). (R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d) and (a) respectively) Either of those findings, if supported by the evidence, would have been sufficient in and of itself to base a grant of permanent custody pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1).

Section 2151.414 permits permanent custody upon clear and convincing proof of best interest plus inability to place, abandonment, or twelve months of agency custody within a consecutive twenty-two-month period.

In Re Huston, Unpublished Decision (12-29-2003) · filed 2003-12-29(B)(1)

At the hearing held pursuant to R.C.R.C. 2151.414 the court may grant permanent custody of the child to an agency if the court determines by clear and convincing evidence it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody, and: if the child is not abandoned and the child cannot be placed with either parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parents; the child is abandoned, which means a parent has failed to visit or maintain contact with the child for more than ninety days [R.C. 2151.011 ]; or the child has been in the temporary custody of the agency for twelve or more months in a consecutive twenty-two month period ending after March 18, 1999.

Section 2151.414 applies the same permanent-custody procedure and burden to newborns as to older children and does not require denial of permanent custody merely because imminent harm is unlikely or a successful parent-child relationship may be possible.

In Re West, Unpublished Decision (6-10-2005) · filed 2005-06-10

R.C. 2151.414 specifies the procedure a court must use when deciding whether to grant a children services agency's request for permanent custody, whether the child is a newborn baby, toddler, etc. Nothing in the statute imposes any different burden upon the agency to prove that permanent custody would serve a newborn's best interest and nothing in the statute requires a trial court to deny permanent custody to the agency when the risk of imminent harm is low and when the chance of a successful parent-child relationship exists.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(a) permits permanent custody without waiting twelve months when the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent, and subsection (C) permits a guardian ad litem to file the written report on the hearing date.

In Re Woods, Unpublished Decision (7-7-2005) · filed 2005-07-07(B)(1)(a), (C)

This section states if "any of the following apply." Subsection (a) states "if the child cannot be placed with either of the child's parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child's parents." This subsection has nothing to do with the passage of any specific time, but references a reasonable amount of time. ... Pursuant to this section, the guardian ad litem may file a report on the day of the hearing.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(a) requires both a finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time and a finding that termination is in the child's best interest; proof by clear and convincing evidence of any one factor in division (E) requires the former finding.

In Re Walker, Unpublished Decision (12-12-2005) · filed 2005-12-12(B)(1)(a), (E)

Thus to terminate parental rights under R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a), the trial court must find 1) that the child should not be placed with his or her parents within a reasonable time and 2) that terminating parental rights is in the best interest of the child. {¶ 8} To enter a finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with his or her parents within a reasonable time, the trial court must review the factors under R.C. 2151.414 (E). If the trial court finds one of the factors present by clear and convincing evidence, the trial court must make the finding that the child cannot be returned to the parents.

Section 2151.414 permits permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence establishes one of the conditions in subsection (B)(1) and that permanent custody is in the child's best interest; a finding under (B)(1)(a) also requires at least one subsection (E) factor to apply to each parent.

In Re M.E., Unpublished Decision (4-13-2006) · filed 2006-04-13(B)(1)(a), (B)(1)(d), (D), and (E)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 (E) requires the trial court to find at least one of the listed sixteen factors applicable to each parent before entering a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. ... Once the trial court determines that any one of the conditions is present, it must then determine by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the best interest of the child. ... We find that clear and convincing evidence exists to support the trial court's determination that the enumerated factors of R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a) and (d) exist, and that permanent custody to CCDCFS is in the best interest of all four children.

Section 2151.414 governs a motion for permanent custody after a child has already been adjudicated dependent, so only the disposition of that motion remains to be decided and the proceeding need not be bifurcated.

In Re J.H., Unpublished Decision (6-26-2006) · filed 2006-06-26

On a motion for permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414 , where a child has already been adjudicated dependent, there is only one issue to decide, to wit: either the motion is granted, in which case the parental rights are terminated, or else the motion is denied.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(a) permits permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence shows that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

In Re Alexander, Unpublished Decision (12-19-2006) · filed 2006-12-19(B)(1)(a)

A court may grant permanent custody of a child to an agency if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the child's best interest to grant permanent custody to the agency and that any of the factors in R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1) apply. R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1). ... The evidence clearly showed that Tia could not and should not be placed with appellant within a reasonable time. And Lorraine voluntarily surrendered all of her parental rights. Furthermore, the evidence demonstrated that it was in Tia's best interest for the court to grant permanent custody to appellee.

Section 2151.414 permits permanent custody only upon clear and convincing evidence of a ground in division (B)(1) and that permanent custody is in the child's best interests; proof of one division (E) factor supports a finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

In Matter of L.M., 06ap-534 (4-5-2007) · filed 2007-04-05(B)(1)(a), (D), and (E)(1)

In order to terminate appellants' parental rights, FCCS was required to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that (1 ) one of the four factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1) applies; and (2) termination is in the child's best interests. ... If the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that one or more of the enumerated factors in R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) through (16) exist, the court shall enter a finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent. One factor alone will support a trial court's decision that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time period. ... In the final analysis, due to father's probation conditions and the refusal of mother and father to live apart, the child may not be reunited with them. Accordingly, the court's order is supported under R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1).

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time and that granting permanent custody to a children's services agency is in the child's best interests.

In Re Justin K., Unpublished Decision (9-21-2007) · filed 2007-09-21(B), (D), and (E)

R.C. 2151.414 provides that a parent's rights may not be terminated unless the court finds evidence that (1) the child, "* * * cannot be placed with one of the child's parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent," and (2) that a grant of permanent custody of a child to a children's service agency is in the child's best interests. R.C. 2151.414 (B). With respect to the first requirement, R.C. 2151.414 (E) sets forth a list of 16 predicate findings. One of those findings must be established prior to a judicial conclusion that a child cannot or should not be placed with the child's parent. R.C. 2151.414 (E). If a court determines that one of the predicate findings exist, then the court must enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with either of his or her parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1). The statute also enumerates certain criteria for evaluating whether permanent custody with a children's services agency is in the child's best interests. R.C. 2151.414 (D)(1) through (4). All of the court's findings must be supported by clear and convincing evidence, R.C. 2151.414 (B), In re William S. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 95 , and will not be overturned as against the manifest weight of the evidence if the record contains competent credible evidence by which the court could have formed a firm belief or conviction that the essential statutory elements for a termination of parental rights have been established. In re S. (1995), 102 Ohio App.3d 338 , 344-345 .

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(a) permits an award of permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence shows that permanent custody is in the child's best interest, the child does not fall within the specified abandonment, orphan, or duration-of-custody categories, and the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent.

In Re A.U., 22287 (1-11-2008) · filed 2008-01-11(B)(1)(a)

R.C. 2151.414 (B) sets forth the circumstances under which a court may grant permanent custody of a child to a children services agency. Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a), the court may grant permanent custody of a child if the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody of the child to the children services agency, (2) the child is not abandoned or orphaned or has not been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period ending on or after March 18, 1999, and (3) the child cannot be placed with either of the child's parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child's parents.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) permits a juvenile court to award permanent custody to an agency upon clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and that at least one of the statute's listed alternative conditions applies.

In Re N.R., Ca2007-12-314 (4-28-2008) · filed 2008-04-28(B)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1) establishes the test for a juvenile court to apply in ruling on a motion by a public children services agency for permanent custody of a child. In re Schaefer , 111 Ohio St.3d 498 , 502 , 2006-Ohio-5513 , ¶ 31 ; In re C.E. , Butler App. Nos. CA2006-01-015, CA2006-02-024, 2006-Ohio-4827 , ¶ 22 . {¶ 11} The juvenile court may award permanent custody to an agency if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that: 1) the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child, utilizing, in part, the factors of R.C. 2151.414 (D); and, 2) any of the following apply: the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent; the child is abandoned; the child is orphaned; or the child has been in the temporary custody of the agency for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period. R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d); In re Schaefer , at ¶ 32-36.

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and that a circumstance in subsection (B)(1) exists; inability to place the child with a parent within a reasonable time is assessed under subsection (E), and best interest under subsection (D).

In Matter of Patrick, 2008 Ca 00063 (7-14-2008) · filed 2008-07-14(B)(1)(a), (D), (E)(1)

Revised Code § 2151.414 (B)(1) addresses under what circumstances a trial court may grant permanent custody. This statute provides as follows: {¶ 37} "(B)(1) Except as provided in division (B)(2) of this section, the court may grant permanent custody of a child to a movant if the court determines at the hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this section, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody of the child to the agency that filed the motion for permanent custody and that any of the following apply: {¶ 38} "(a) The child is not abandoned or orphaned or has not been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period ending on or after March 18, 1999, and the child cannot be placed with either of the child's parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child's parents. ... {¶ 42} Ohio's present statutory scheme requires a court, in determining whether a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with the parents (see R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a), supra), to consider the existence of one or more factors under R.C. 2151.414 (E), including whether or not "[following the placement of the child outside the child's home and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the child's home." See R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1); In re Bender , Stark App. No. 2004CA00015, 2004-Ohio-2268 . ... {¶ 67} Based on the foregoing, we find the trial court's conclusions pursuant to R.C. § 2151.414 (B) are supported by the weight of the evidence. {¶ 68} We further find the trial court's grant of permanent custody of the minor child to SCDJFS was made in the consideration of the child's best interests and did not constitute an error or an abuse of discretion.

Section 2151.414 requires permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence shows that custody is in the children's best interests and either the children were in state custody for twelve of the preceding twenty-two months or they cannot or should not be placed with a parent under the statutory conditions.

In Re S.K., 2008 Ca 67 (1-30-2009) · filed 2009-01-30(B)(1)(d), (B)(2), and (E)

A trial court shall terminate parental rights and grant permanent custody of children to the State if the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the children's best interests and that the children have been in the State's custody for at least twelve of the preceding twenty-two months. R.C. § 2151.414 (B)(1)(d). Alternatively, the court shall grant permanent custody if the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the children's best interests and that the children cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable period of time or that the children should not be placed with either parent because the parents have failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions that caused the children to be removed from the home, despite reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the Agency to assist in reunification. R.C. § 2151.414 (B)(2) and (E). Both alternatives apply in this case.

Section 2151.414 requires permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence establishes the child's best interest and either twelve months of agency custody during the preceding twenty-two months or inability to place the child with a parent because the parents repeatedly failed to remedy the conditions causing removal despite reasonable reunification efforts.

In Re T.J., 23032 (3-20-2009) · filed 2009-03-20(B)(1)(d), (B)(2), and (E)

A trial court shall terminate parental rights and grant permanent custody to the State upon a finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that permanent custody is in a child's best interest and that the child has been in the State's custody for at least twelve of the preceding twenty-two months. R.C. § 2151.414 (B)(1)(d). Alternatively, a trial court shall grant permanent custody if it finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and that the child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with either parent because the parents have failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions that caused the child to be removed from the home, despite reasonable case planning and diligent efforts to assist in reunification. R.C. § 2151.414 (B)(2) and (E). Both alternatives apply in this case.

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence of both a qualifying statutory basis for permanent custody and that permanent custody is in the child’s best interest.

In re J.C. · filed 2010-02-24(B)(1), (B)(2), (D), and (E)

Before a juvenile court can terminate parental rights and award to a proper moving agency permanent custody of a child, it must find clear and convincing evidence of both prongs of the permanent-custody test: (1) that the child is abandoned, orphaned, has been in the temporary custody of the agency for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, or that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414(E); and (2) the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414(D).

Section 2151.414(D)(2) requires a best-interests finding and permanent transfer of custody when its four factors are met.

In re T.N.T. · filed 2013-03-06(D)(2)

In this instance, due to the duration of the child’s removal from the household, the standard to be applied is that found in R.C. 2151.414(D)(2), which requires a best interests finding and permanent transfer of custody if four factors are met.

Section 2151.414(A) leaves an abuse, neglect, or dependency adjudication and an agency's temporary custody intact when a motion for permanent custody is denied.

In re Z.H. · filed 2013-09-11(A)

Under R.C. 2151.414(A), an adjudication of abuse, neglect, or dependency and the grant of temporary custody to an agency “shall not be affected by a denial of the motion for permanent custody.” Id. Thus, absent review at this point, if the agency fails to seek or is denied permanent custody, Father is without an effective remedy to challenge the initial juvenile proceedings which resulted in the adjudication of abuse and dependency and in the loss of custody.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(b)'s abandonment ground is established when a parent has failed to visit or maintain contact for more than 90 days.

In re V.R. · filed 2017-05-11(B)(1)(b)

Mother has not visited the children since May 16, 2016 and has had a total of eight visits with the children since they came into custody. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(b) states the trial court may grant permanent custody if the child is abandoned. Abandonment is defined in R.C. 2151.011(C) as, “a child is presumed abandoned when the parents of the child have failed to visit or maintain contact with the child for more than ninety days, regardless of whether the parents resume contact with the child after that period of ninety days.” May 16, 2016 until the hearing date of November 27, 2016 is in excess of 90 days.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(a) has no minimum custody-duration requirement, so an agency need not hold temporary custody for a particular period before seeking permanent custody on that ground.

In re K.M. · filed 2017-10-23(B)(1)(a)

R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) does not have any time qualification. As a result, appellee was not required to have temporary custody of K.M. for a particular period of time prior to moving for permanent custody.

Permanent custody may be contrary to the child's best interest when the child must remain in therapeutic out-of-home care, cannot be placed in a foster or adoptive home, and would be harmed by severing a beneficial parental relationship.

In re C.C. · filed 2017-11-20(D)

Although they needed permanence in their lives, there was no other option for them than to continue living in out-of-home therapeutic placements for the foreseeable future. These children could not be returned to Mother’s home, but they also could not be placed in a foster home or an adoptive home. MCJFS has failed to demonstrate that the trial court erred in concluding that permanent custody was not in the best interest of C.C. or L.C.

Sections 2151.414(B)(1)(b) and (B)(1)(d) are supported when the parents abandoned the child and the child remained continuously in agency custody for more than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period.

In re H.W. · filed 2018-02-09(B)(1)(b), (B)(1)(d)

The record fully supports the court’s determination that H.W. has been in appellee’s temporary custody for more than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, as it undisputed that H.W. has been in appellee’s custody without interruption since July 15, 2015. See R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d). The record also supports the court’s finding that mother and father abandoned H.W., as mother last visited H.W. on August 3, 2015, and father visited last with H.W. on February 23, 2017. See R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(b).

When clear and convincing evidence establishes abandonment under Section 2151.414(E)(10), the juvenile court need not also determine whether the agency used reasonable reunification efforts or whether reasonable-time placement is possible.

In re C.M. · filed 2018-06-22(E)(10)

Since the juvenile court determined by clear and convincing evidence the twins were abandoned by appellant, the juvenile court was not required to determine whether appellee used reasonable efforts to reunify the twins with appellant or … whether the twins could not or should not be placed with appellant within a reasonable time. R.C. 2151.414(E)(10); see R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(b).

Suspension of visitation does not defeat abandonment under Section 2151.414(B)(1)(b) when the parent's voluntary failure to visit consistently and make case-plan progress caused the suspension and more than 90 days passed without contact.

In re B.C. · filed 2018-07-09(B)(1)(b)

Mother voluntarily chose not to do so, and therefore, did not have any contact with the children for more than 90 days. Thus, it was Mother's active choices that led to her inability to see the children, and the juvenile court's finding of abandonment is supported by clear and convincing evidence.

A parent's lack of contact may constitute abandonment even after visitation is suspended when the parent's own repeated incarceration, missed services, and missed visits caused the suspension.

In re S.M. · filed 2018-11-19(B)(1)(b)

Mother disputes the juvenile court's finding she abandoned S.M. claiming any abandonment was not done "willfully." However, contrary to Mother's claim otherwise, it was Mother's own actions that caused in her visitation time being suspended, thereby resulting in the juvenile court's finding she had abandoned S.M. This includes Mother's repeated incarceration, unwillingness to attended the appointments necessary to complete her case plan services, and failure to attend all but five of the 29 scheduled visits with S.M.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(b)'s abandonment ground is supported when a parent has no contact with the child for more than 90 days, regardless of an asserted lack of intent to abandon.

In re A.J. · filed 2018-12-10(B)(1)(b)

Pursuant to R.C. 2151.011(C), "a child shall be presumed abandoned when the parents of the child have failed to visit or maintain contact with the child for more than ninety days, regardless of whether the parents resume contact with the child after that period of ninety days." ... Father instead argues the evidence contrary to the juvenile court's decision is "so strong as to overcome the presumption" of abandonment. Father, however, did not cite to any evidence within the record to support his claim.

Section 2151.414(D)(1) requires consideration of all relevant best-interest factors when deciding an agency's permanent-custody complaint, but the court lacks authority to order an alternative disposition the agency did not request.

In re T.J. · filed 2018-12-21(D)(1)

When a public children services agency files a complaint for permanent custody, the role of the juvenile court is limited to deciding the merits of that request. It lacks the authority to order an alternative disposition not requested by the agency. In re P.S., 10th Dist. Franklin Nos 08AP-1023 and 08AP-1024, 2009-Ohio-1545, ¶14. ... More importantly, though, there is ample evidence supporting the trial court’s best interests conclusion. In addition to providing that all relevant factors must be considered in making the “best interests” determination, R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) sets forth factors for review.

Section 2151.414 permits permanent custody only upon clear and convincing proof that custody is in the child's best interest and one of the conditions in division (B)(1)(a) through (e) applies.

In re Z. Children · filed 2019-05-01(B)(1), (D)(1)

A juvenile court may grant permanent custody of a child to an agency if the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that (1) permanent custody is in the child’s best interest and (2) one of the circumstances provided in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (e) applies.

Only one of division (B)(1)'s alternative findings is needed to satisfy the second prong of the permanent-custody test.

In re K.M. · filed 2019-05-13(B)(1)

Only one of these findings must be met to satisfy the second prong of the two-part permanent custody test.

Divisions (B)(1)(a) and (B)(1)(d) are alternative grounds, and either can independently support permanent custody when the best-interest requirement is also met.

In re D.W. · filed 2019-05-13(B)(1)(a), (B)(1)(d)

As findings under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) and R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) are alternative findings, each is independently sufficient to use as a basis to grant the motion for permanent custody.

Section 2151.414 permits permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence supports a qualifying division (B)(1) ground and the statutory best-interest determination.

In re A.D. · filed 2019-09-11(B)(1), (D)(1)

Upon review, we find sufficient clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's decision to grant appellee permanent custody of the children, and do not find any manifest miscarriage of justice.

Only one of division (B)(1)'s alternative findings must be established to satisfy the second prong of the permanent-custody test.

In re A.S. · filed 2019-10-07(B)(1)

Only one of these findings must be met to satisfy the second prong of the two-part permanent custody test.

Only one division (B)(1) ground is required, so a supported twelve-of-twenty-two-month finding makes errors concerning an alternative parental-placement ground harmless.

In re R.M.S. · filed 2019-10-18(B)(1)

A trial court is only required to find the applicability of one factor under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1).

A supported division (B)(1)(d) finding makes an additional division (B)(1)(a) finding superfluous because only one alternative division (B)(1) ground is required.

In re X.M.W. · filed 2020-02-12(B)(1)(a), (B)(1)(d)

R.C. 2151.414(B)(1), ... however, only requires that “any” of the (a) through (e) factors exist, rendering any finding under (B)(1)(a) superfluous in light of the R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) conclusion.

Division (B)(1)'s grounds are alternatives, and only one must be met to satisfy the first prong of the permanent-custody test.

In re Co.J. · filed 2020-02-18(B)(1)

“The factors contained within R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)-(e) are alternative findings, and only one must be met in order for the first prong of the permanent custody test to be satisfied.”

Division (B)(1)'s grounds are alternatives, and only one must be met to satisfy the first prong of the permanent-custody test.

In re C.J. · filed 2020-02-18(B)(1)

“The factors contained within R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)-(e) are alternative findings, and only one must be met in order for the first prong of the permanent custody test to be satisfied.”

Divisions (B)(1)(a) and (B)(1)(d) are independent grounds, so satisfaction of either eliminates the need to establish the other.

In re C.H. · filed 2020-03-02(B)(1)(a), (B)(1)(d)

Nevertheless, we emphasize that, as previously stated, findings under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) and (B)(1)(d) are independent. As long as one was satisfied the other need not be.

Only one division (B)(1) factor must be present to satisfy the first prong of permanent custody.

In re K.S. · filed 2021-03-11(B)(1)

Only one of the factors must be present for the first prong of the permanent custody analysis to be satisfied.

When all four findings in subsection (D)(2) apply, permanent custody is in the child’s best interest and the court must commit the child to the agency’s permanent custody.

In re T.W. · filed 2021-06-17(D)(2)

The juvenile court made findings consistent with granting permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414(D)(2), which states if all four of its subsections apply, “permanent custody is in the best interest of the child, and the court shall commit the child to the permanent custody of a public children services agency or private child placing agency.”

If every factor in subsection (D)(2) applies, permanent custody is necessarily in the child’s best interest and the court must grant permanent custody to the agency.

In re T.S. · filed 2021-06-17(D)(2)

Our review reflects that the juvenile court’s findings were supported by competent, credible evidence in the record. Because all the factors under R.C. 2151.414(D)(2) apply, permanent custody was necessarily in the best interest of the child, and the trial court was required to grant permanent custody to CCDCFS.

An abandonment finding under subsection (B)(1)(b) independently satisfies the first prong of the permanent-custody test without a reasonable-time placement finding under subsection (B)(1)(a).

In re A.P. · filed 2021-06-29(B)(1)(a), (B)(1)(b)

{¶39} A trial court's finding of abandonment under R.C. §2151.414(B)(1)(b) will satisfy the first prong of the permanent custody test, independent of a finding under R.C. §2151.414(B)(1)(a) [Parental Placement within a Reasonable Time], allowing the court to move on to the second prong of considering whether the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child. In re A.M., 5th Dist. Stark No. 2013 CA 00113, 2013-Ohio-4152.

An agency’s permanent-custody motion is a procedural due-process requirement rather than a requirement of subject-matter or case jurisdiction, and it may be forfeited or waived in proper circumstances.

In re J.C. · filed 2021-10-19(A)

Instead, the motion is simply a procedural due process requirement that can be forfeited or waived under the proper circumstances.

Permanent custody requires clear and convincing evidence that custody is in the child's best interest and that at least one circumstance enumerated in subsection (B)(1) applies.

In re A.H. · filed 2021-11-09(B)(1)

R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) states permanent custody may be granted if the trial court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interest of the child and: ... (a) The child is not abandoned or orphaned * * * and the child cannot be placed with either of the child's parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child's parents. ... (b) The child is abandoned. ... (c) The child is orphaned, and there are no relatives of the child who are able to take permanent custody. ... (d) The child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period * * *. ... (e) The child or another child in the custody of the parent or parents from whose custody the child has been removed has been adjudicated an abused, neglected, or dependent child on three separate occasions by any court in this state or another state.

Permanent custody is supported when the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent, the custody-duration ground applies, and the best-interest factors favor agency custody.

In re W.H. · filed 2022-01-19(B)(1)(a), (B)(1)(d), (D)

Based on the foregoing, we find that the trial court’s decision finding that K.H. could not or should not be placed with Appellant-Mother or Father within a reasonable period of time was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and that the grant of permanent custody to the Agency was in the child's best interest.

Permanent custody is supported when sufficient evidence shows the child cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable time and agency custody is in the child's best interest.

In re L.W. · filed 2022-05-03(B)(1), (D)

Based upon the foregoing, we find the trial court's findings that L.W. could not be placed with Appellant-Father within a reasonable time and that an award of permanent custody was in the child's best interest were not against the manifest weight of the evidence and were based upon sufficient evidence.

The statutory presumption of abandonment arising from more than ninety days without visitation or contact is rebuttable.

In re S.G. · filed 2022-06-09(B)(1)(b)

{¶60} This provision creates a presumption of abandonment, which may be rebutted. In re S.B., 183 Ohio App.3d 300, 2009-Ohio-3619, 916 N.E.2d 1110.

Permanent custody is proper when clear and convincing evidence establishes both the 12-of-22-month ground and that agency custody serves the children's best interest.

In re K.A.W. · filed 2022-09-16(B)(1)(d), (D)

On this record, the juvenile court did not err in terminating Mother's and Father’s parental rights and awarding permanent custody to GCCS; there was clear and convincing evidence that the children had been in the temporary custody of GCCS for more than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period and that an award of permanent custody was in the children's best interest.

Undisputed abandonment and twelve months of agency custody within a consecutive twenty-two-month period satisfy the first prong of the permanent-custody test.

In re A.L. · filed 2022-11-17(B)(1)(b), (B)(1)(d)

Here, there is no dispute that A.L. had been abandoned by mother and had been in the temporary custody of FCCS for more than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, satisfying R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(b) and (d).

Permanent custody is supported when competent, credible evidence establishes the custody-duration ground and that a legally secure agency placement is in the children's best interest.

In re G.H. · filed 2022-12-13(B)(1)(d), (D)(1)

After reviewing the record, Mother’s limited arguments on appeal, and the thoroughly analyzed and well written September 16, 2021 Magistrate’s Decision and April 6, 2022 Judgment Entry, we find the juvenile court’s determination to award permanent custody of G.H., D.K., and D.H. to LCDJFS was supported by competent, credible evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. It was in the best interests of the children to be placed in a legally secure and stable placement.

Subsection (B) lists alternative permanent-custody grounds, and any one alternative can independently support the statutory finding.

In re Lu.M-R. · filed 2022-12-29(B)

{¶ 24} R.R. seems to contend that permanent custody can only be granted after a child has been in the temporary custody of FCCS for 12 months in a consecutive 22-month period. However, R.C. 2151.414(B) lists four alternatives, and any single alternative can independently support a finding of permanent custody.

When all subsection (D)(2) factors apply, permanent custody is necessarily in the child’s best interest and the juvenile court must grant the agency permanent custody.

In re P.S. · filed 2023-01-19(D)(2)

The record demonstrates that all the factors listed in R.C. 2151.414(D)(2) apply to the facts of this case. Therefore, permanent custody was necessarily in the best interest of the child, and the juvenile court was required to grant permanent custody to CCDCFS. In re P.J., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110121, 2021-Ohio-1821, at ¶ 26.

Even after the twelve-of-twenty-two-month threshold is met, the agency must separately prove by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In re C.P. · filed 2026-04-24(B)(1)(d)

Once R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) is met, “[t]he agency still must prove by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the child’s best interest to grant permanent custody to the agency.”

Permanent custody requires both that the disposition be in the child's best interest and that a subsection (B)(1) threshold ground apply.

In re Z.B. · filed 2026-05-01(B)(1)

Under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1), a trial court may terminate parental rights and grant permanent custody to a children services agency if that disposition is in the child’s best interest and the child has been in the agency’s temporary custody for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period.

Under the version applicable when the permanent custody motion was filed, § 2151.414 required clear and convincing evidence that the child could not or should not be placed with the parent within a reasonable time and that permanent custody was in the child’s best interest.

In Re Peterson, Unpublished Decision (8-28-2001) · filed 2001-08-28

Under the version of R.C. 2151.414 in effect when the permanent custody motion was filed, FCCS was required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Faith could not be placed with appellant within a reasonable time or should not be placed with her, and that it was in Faith's best interest to grant the permanent custody motion.

Section 2151.414(B) permits a grant of permanent custody only when clear and convincing evidence establishes that it is in the child's best interest and that one of the listed statutory circumstances applies.

In the Matter of Krems, Unpublished Decision (5-14-2004) · filed 2004-05-14(B)

The juvenile court may terminate the rights of a natural parent and grant permanent custody of the child to the moving party only if it determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody to the agency that filed the motion, and that one of the four circumstances delineated in R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a) through (d) is present. ... As noted above, there was clear and convincing evidence provided to support the juvenile court's determination to grant permanent custody to GCJFS.

Section 2151.414(B)(2) permits permanent agency custody of a child who is neither abandoned nor orphaned when clear and convincing evidence establishes that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent and that permanent custody serves the child's best interest.

In the Matter of Brewer, Unpublished Decision (5-14-2004) · filed 2004-05-14(B)(2)

R.C. 2151.414 (B)(2) governs the termination of parental rights in a natural child when the child is neither abandoned nor orphaned. It provides that a court may grant custody of a child to a movant if the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) "the child cannot be placed with either of the child's parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child's parents;" and (2) "it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody of the child to the agency that filed the motion for permanent custody." R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1).

Section 2151.414(B)(1) permits permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence shows that it serves the child's best interest and the child has spent at least twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period in agency temporary custody.

In the Matter of H.E.R., Unpublished Decision (6-18-2004) · filed 2004-06-18(B)(1)

Although we do not deny the general proposition that such a right exists, a parent's right to custody may be terminated if a court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, (1) that "it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody of the child to the agency that filed the motion for permanent custody" and (2) that "[t]he child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period[.]" R.C. § 2151.414 (B)(1). ... The foregoing findings, which are supported by the record, are sufficient to satisfy the requirements of R.C. § 2151.414 . Thus, we find no error in the trial court's determination, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interest of H.E.R. and J.A.R. to grant permanent custody to the State.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) requires clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody serves the child's best interests and that the child spent at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period in agency temporary custody.

In Re Andy-Jones, Unpublished Decision (6-24-2004) · filed 2004-06-24(B)(1)(d)

In this matter, FCCS had to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Christian's best interests were served by a grant of permanent custody to FCCS and that Christian was in the temporary custody of FCCS for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period. R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d).

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence of a listed ground and a finding that permanent custody is in the child's best interest before custody is granted to an agency.

In Re L.F., Unpublished Decision (8-26-2004) · filed 2004-08-26(B)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 sets forth a two-prong analysis to be applied for a determination that permanent custody should be granted to an agency: First, the judge must find by clear and convincing evidence that one of the factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1) exists. Second, that the award of permanent custody is in the best interest of the child.

Section 2151.414(B)(2) permits permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence establishes that it is in the child's best interest and that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent.

In Re M.C., Unpublished Decision (9-7-2004) · filed 2004-09-07(B)(2)

Once a juvenile court does find by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody to the agency, R.C. 2151.414 (B)(2) provides that a court may grant permanent custody if, under R.C. 2151.414 (E), the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot or should not be placed with his parents.

Section 2151.414(B) permits permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence establishes that it is in the child's best interest and that one of four specified circumstances exists.

In the Matter of A.C., Unpublished Decision (10-18-2004) · filed 2004-10-18(B)

A juvenile court may grant a public children services agency permanent custody of a child if it determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the child's best interest and that one of the four circumstances listed in R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a)-(d) exists. R.C. 2151.414 (B). Appellant concedes that A.C. has been in CCDJFS's temporary custody "for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period ending on or after March 18, 1999." R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d). Therefore, the only question in dispute in this case was whether it was in A.C.'s best interest to grant CCDJFS permanent custody of him.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) requires clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody serves the child's best interests and that a qualifying statutory category applies.

In the Matter of Hinkle, Unpublished Decision (11-16-2004) · filed 2004-11-16(B)(1)

We find that FCCS established by clear and convincing evidence that the Hinkle children's best interests are served by placing them in the permanent custody of FCCS. Through the evidence adduced at the hearing, we find that the trial court correctly applied the statutory guidelines found in R.C. 2151.414 , and its judgment was not contrary to law.

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence of both a qualifying ground for permanent custody and that permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In Re T.S., Unpublished Decision (1-7-2004) · filed 2004-01-07

Before a juvenile court can terminate parental rights and award to a proper moving agency permanent custody of a child, it must find clear and convincing evidence of both prongs of the permanent custody test: (1) that the child is abandoned, orphaned, has been in the temporary custody of the agency for at least twelve months of the prior twenty-two months, or that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414 (E); and (2) the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414 (D).

Section 2151.414(B)(1) requires clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody serves the child’s best interest and that a qualifying placement condition exists.

In re C.P. · filed 2014-01-16(B)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 requires the court to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that: (1) granting permanent custody of the child to the agency is in the best interest of the child under R.C. 2151.414(D), and (2) either the child (a) cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with either parent if any one of the factors in R.C. 2151.414(E) are present; (b) is abandoned; (c) is orphaned and no relatives are able to take permanent custody of the child; or (d) has been in the temporary custody of one or more public or private children services agencies for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) requires a two-part test before a court may terminate parental rights and award permanent custody to a children services agency.

In re A.D. · filed 2014-11-17(B)(1)

Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1), a court may terminate parental rights and award permanent custody to a children services agency if it makes findings pursuant to a two-part test.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) permits permanent custody when it serves the child's best interest and one of the listed circumstances applies, including abandonment.

In re T.H. · filed 2019-03-11(B)(1)

Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1), the juvenile court may terminate parental rights and award permanent custody of a child to a children services agency if the court makes findings pursuant to a two-part test.

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence of a listed permanent custody condition and that permanent custody is in the child’s best interest.

In re C.L. · filed 2023-02-16

R.C. 2151.414 contains a two-prong test that courts must apply in deciding whether to award permanent custody to the agency. ... The record contains competent, credible evidence that the essential statutory elements for permanent custody have been established by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) requires the court to find a statutory ground for permanent custody and determine that permanent custody is in the child’s best interest.

In re M.S.M. · filed 2023-10-16(B)(1)

R.C. 2151.414(B) therefore provides a two-pronged analysis the trial court is required to apply when ruling on a motion for permanent custody. In practice, the trial court will determine whether one of the four circumstances delineated in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) (a) through (d) is present before proceeding to a determination regarding the best interest of the child.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) requires clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child’s best interest once a listed condition is established.

In re C.H. · filed 2024-01-11(B)(1)

Once the first prong is met, the juvenile court must find by clear and convincing evidence that granting permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1).

Section 2151.414(B)(1) requires clear and convincing evidence that an enumerated ground applies and that permanent custody is in the child’s best interest.

In re N.M. · filed 2014-10-29(B)(1)

R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) establishes a two-part test for courts to apply when determining whether to grant a motion for permanent custody to a public children services agency. The statute requires the court to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that: (1) one of the enumerated factors in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)-(e) apply, and (2) permanent custody is in the best interest of the child.

Section 2151.414 permits permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence shows that custody serves the child’s best interest and the child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

In re T.T. · filed 2014-12-12(B)(1)(a)

There was clear and convincing evidence to support the conclusion that such an award was in the best interest of the children and that the children could not safely be reunified with Mother within a reasonable period of time.

Section 2151.414 contemplates an award of temporary custody to a welfare department followed by a motion for permanent custody.

In Re Snider · filed 1984-03-16

While R.C. 2151.414 was not in effect at the time of the decision in In re Height, supra, that section does not alter the situation as it contemplates the prior award of temporary custody to a welfare department followed by a motion for an award of permanent custody, which also did not here occur.

Section 2151.414 permits an award of permanent custody when the statutory grounds are established and the award is in the child's best interest.

In Re Darnell, Unpublished Decision (6-5-2006) · filed 2006-06-05(B)

There is sufficient and competent credible evidence demonstrating Brianna cannot be placed with either of the parents within a reasonable time and should not be placed with them. There is sufficient and competent credible evidence demonstrating an award of permanent custody is in Brianna's best interest.

Under subsection (E)(2), a juvenile court must find that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent when the parent's chronic mental illness is so severe that the parent cannot provide an adequate permanent home now or within one year after the hearing.

In Re E.H., Unpublished Decision (9-13-2006) · filed 2006-09-13(E)(2)

Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (E)(2), because the trial court found that Williams had a chronic mental illness that was "so severe that it makes the parent unable to provide an adequate permanent home for the child at the present time and, as anticipated, within one year after the [hearing]," it was required to enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. ... Given the severity of Williams' mental illness, her long history of failing to comply with the prescribed plan of treatment necessary to manage her illness, and the concern of her psychiatrist and others that she may again stop taking her medication, there was ample evidence before the trial court from which it could conclude that Williams suffered from a mental illness that was so severe that it made her unable to care for E.H. at the current time or any time in the near future.

A parent's mental-health condition alone does not establish unsuitability under § 2151.414(E)(2); the court must find that the condition prevents the parent from providing an adequate permanent home.

In re M.G. · filed 2014-03-17(E)(2)

The trial court recognized that appellant’s mental health condition, alone, does not make her an “unsuitable” parent. Instead, the trial court was required to find that appellant cannot provide an adequate home because of her mental health condition. The testimony presented at the hearing supports the trial court’s finding that although appellant is receiving active treatment, she still suffers from lapses that would impair her ability to attend to the twins. The record demonstrates that, if the twins were reunified with their parents, they would not be supervised while in appellant’s care. Without this supervision, the safety of the twins would be compromised. Dr. Huntsman, the court-appointed psychologist, opined, “with reasonable psychological certainty, that [appellant] lacks the mental competency and capacity to parent her boys adequately.”

A severe chronic mental illness can support a finding that children cannot be returned within a reasonable time even when the parent loves them and can make good parenting decisions during periods of stability.

In re A.E. · filed 2014-10-14(E)(2)

Everyone testified that there was a strong bond between Currier and the children and that she was capable of making good parenting decisions when her mental illness was not an issue. However, there was ample testimony that Currier has repeatedly placed the children in dangerous situations and has provided little stability for them. As recently as July 2013, Currier attempted to commit suicide by overdosing. Although the children did not witness this attempt, her feelings of hopelessness caused her to make a decision without considering the needs of her children or the effect her decision would have on her children. The pattern of this type of behavior has been repeated numerous times.

A cannot-or-should-not-be-placed finding requires at least one subsection (E) factor to exist as to each parent, and fails when the record establishes none for one parent.

In re S. Children · filed 2020-07-22(E)

As we have determined that the trial court’s entry does not establish the presence of any of the factors with respect to father, we hold that the trial court’s finding that the children cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time was not supported by sufficient evidence and that, consequently, the trial court erred in granting permanent custody of J.J.S. and J.K.S. to HCJFS.

Under subsection (E), a court must find that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time if clear and convincing evidence establishes at least one enumerated factor as to each parent.

In re J.C. · filed 2013-07-15(E)

Under R.C. 2151.414(E), the trial court must consider all relevant evidence before making this determination. The trial court is required to enter such a finding if it determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that one or more of the factors enumerated in R .C. 2151.414(E)(1) through (16) exist with respect to each of the child's parents.

Because subsection (E)’s grounds are alternatives, an error in one factor is harmless when another factor supporting the cannot-or-should-not-be-placed finding is supported by clear and convincing evidence.

In re T.K. · filed 2017-12-20(E)

As long as one of the Section 2151.414(E) alternative grounds was properly supported by clear and convincing evidence, a parent will not have suffered any prejudice arising out of any error in the juvenile court’s alternative finding under Section 2151.414(E). ... Accordingly, the juvenile court’s unchallenged alternative Section 2151.414(E) ground satisfies the first prong finding that the children could not be returned to either parent pursuant to Section 2151.414(B)(1)(a).

Failure to remedy, lack of commitment, and unwillingness to provide necessities were supported where a parent could not provide adequate income or housing and was inconsistent with visitation.

In re A.E. · filed 2025-04-24(E)(1), (4), and (14)

From the testimony and evidence presented at trial, R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), (4), and (14) apply to Father’s situation. Father’s own testimony demonstrates that he is unable to provide financially for three children, because he earns $1,000 a month, but has over $2,000 in monthly finances. ... Father was also unable to demonstrate that he can provide adequate housing for his children. ... Father also was inconsistent with his visitation and video calls with the children.

Subsection (E)'s cannot-or-should-not-be-placed inquiry concerns parents, not family caregivers.

In re A.C. · filed 2026-05-07(E)

R.C. 2151.414(E) makes no mention of “family caregivers.” It only addresses parents. Our analysis is limited to the plain language of the statute.

Section 2151.414(E) requires clear and convincing evidence that a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent.

In the Matter of Kitana, Unpublished Decision (7-23-2004) · filed 2004-07-23(E)

R.C. 2151.414 (E) sets forth various factors the court must use in determining by clear and convincing evidence the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. ... Based on the foregoing, we find that there was clear and convincing evidence supporting the trial court's finding that the children could not or should not be placed with appellants within a reasonable time.

A parent's repeated refusals to cooperate with agency workers and counseling, coupled with insubstantial and short-lived case-plan progress, can establish by clear and convincing evidence a lack of commitment to providing an adequate permanent home under subsection (E)(4).

In re T.W. · filed 2013-08-05(E)(4)

Given this evidence, the trial court could conclude by clear and convincing evidence that Wright lacked the commitment to providing an adequate home as set forth in R.C. 2151.414(E)(4).

Section 2151.414(E)(4) supports a finding that a parent lacks commitment to provide an adequate permanent home when the parent repeatedly refuses agency assistance and access, discontinues counseling, and makes little sustained progress on the case plan.

In re M.W. · filed 2013-08-05(E)(4)

In addition, there was substantial evidence that Wright lacked commitment to provide an adequate home for M.W. Wright frequently would not work with the Agency workers to try and help M.W. When the workers would offer assistance, she would decline it. When the caseworkers wanted to view the home, she refused. Even when Wright allowed the workers into the home, she refused to give them access to all the rooms. At times, she even refused the workers access to the children. When it came to counseling, Wright would decide to discontinue her therapy if she believed the therapist was reporting to the Agency. Over the multiple years she worked on her case plan, she did not make much progress and most of the progress she did make disappeared over time. Given this evidence, the trial court could conclude by clear and convincing evidence that Wright lacked the commitment to providing an adequate home as set forth in R.C. 2151.414(E)(4).

When permanent custody is based on the child's having been in agency custody for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period and the child's best interest, the court need not consider whether the agency engaged in reasonable case planning and diligent efforts to help the parents remedy the conditions that caused removal.

In re S.J. · filed 2013-08-23(B)(1)(d), (D)(1), and (E)(1)

In relying on R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) and R.C. 2151.414(D)(1), the trial court did not need to consider – and it did not address – whether MCCS engaged in reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child to be placed outside the home.

When the twelve-of-twenty-two-month ground in Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) is established, the court need not also find that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

In re B.M. · filed 2023-11-13(B)(1)(d)

Under the plain language of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), when a child has been in an agency’s temporary custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive 22-month period, a trial court need not find that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parents.

When the twelve-of-twenty-two-month ground and best interest are established, a court need not additionally consider the Section 2151.414(E) placement factors.

In re O.G. · filed 2024-05-16(B)(1)(d), (E)

Similar to the trial court, we also conclude that there was no “need” to consider the R.C. 2151.414(E) factors in the instant case. However, the trial court analyzed some of these factors in its journal entry, hence, we review them as well.

Once the twelve-of-twenty-two-month ground is established, the court need not also find that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent.

In re Z.W. · filed 2025-04-21(B)(1)(d)

Again, under the plain language of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), when a child has been in an agency’s temporary custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive 22-month period, a trial court need not find that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parents.

The reasonable-time ground and twelve-of-twenty-two-month ground are mutually exclusive; once the latter applies, subsection (E)'s reasonable-time factors are unnecessary.

In re Ki.K. · filed 2025-11-14(B)(1)(a) and (d)

With respect to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), if a child has been in an agency’s temporary custody for at least 12 of 22 months, the juvenile court need not find that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, so it is unnecessary to apply the R.C. 2151.414(E) factors. ... Subsections (a) and (d) of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) are, therefore, mutually exclusive.

The availability of a placement that avoids terminating parental rights is neither controlling nor entitled to greater weight than the other permanent-custody factors.

In re N.R. · filed 2021-05-06(B)

“[R.C. 2151.414(B)] does not make the availability of a placement that would not require a termination of parental rights an all-controlling factor. The statute does not even require the court to weigh that factor more heavily than other factors.”

The availability of a placement that avoids terminating parental rights is not controlling and need not receive more weight than other best-interest factors.

In re K.A. · filed 2021-05-24(D)

The statute does not make the availability of a placement that would not require a termination of parental rights an all-controlling factor. The statute does not even require the court to weigh that factor more heavily than other factors.”

Section 2151.414(D)(1) does not support a best-interest finding for permanent agency custody when a potentially viable reunification placement has not been adequately explored and the record lacks clear and convincing evidence favoring permanent custody.

In re S.D. · filed 2013-08-15(D)(1)

We cannot say that the record contains clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the children to be placed in the permanent custody of CCDCFS on these facts.

A legally secure permanent placement could be achieved without terminating parental rights where an approved aunt had extensive caregiving experience, a safe home, family support, and successful visits with the child.

In re A.H. · filed 2025-08-01(D)(1)(d)

We hold that the juvenile court could have achieved a legally secure permanent placement for A.H. without terminating her parents’ rights and awarding HCJFS permanent custody. ... This evidence illustrated that the juvenile court could have achieved a legally secure permanent placement for A.H. without granting HCJFS permanent custody.

A parent’s 30-day visitation suspension does not defeat abandonment when more than 90 additional days pass before visitation resumes.

In re C.W. · filed 2018-09-24(B)(1)(b)

The testimony of Olague was that White’s visits were suspended for 30 days on October 7, 2016, but he did not resume visiting with C.W. until June 9, 2017. Tr. 18. Even excluding the 30 days of the suspension, more than 90 days had passed before visits were resumed. Thus, the evidence supports the trial court’s finding that White had abandoned C.W.