Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2151.414

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) applies when children remained continuously in agency custody for more than twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period.

In re A.P. · filed 2019-04-05(B)(1)(d)

In the instant case, the trial court found that R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) applies to the children, to wit, the children were in the temporary custody of the Agency for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period. The children were placed in the temporary custody of the Agency on March 14, 2017, and temporary custody remained with the Agency continually until the evidentiary hearing on October 30, 2018. The caseworker testified at the hearing that as of that date, the children had been in the Agency’s custody for 595 days.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) permits termination of parental rights when permanent custody is in the child's best interest and the child has been in agency temporary custody for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, without a finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent.

In Matter of D.C., 08ap-1010 (5-7-2009) · filed 2009-05-07(B)(1)(d)

The plain language of R.C. 2151.414 clearly allows for the termination of parental rights without any finding that the children cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, or should not be placed with either parent. Appellant's parental rights can lawfully be terminated upon a finding that the boys have been in the temporary custody of FCCS for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period, and that it is in the best interest of the children to grant permanent custody to FCCS.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) requires clear and convincing evidence of the child's best interest and twelve months of agency custody within a consecutive twenty-two-month period, but no separate finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent because that finding is implicit in the statutory timeframe.

In Re Myers, Unpublished Decision (2-10-2004) · filed 2004-02-10(B)(1)(d)

Under R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d), a trial court may grant permanent custody to the agency if it finds, by clear and convincing evidence, (1) that the child's best interest would be served by an award of permanent custody and (2) that the child has been in the temporary custody of the agency for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period. When granting permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d), the trial court need not find that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time since such a finding is implicit in the time frame provided in the statute. In re Large, supra. See, also In re Riley, Washington App. No. 03CA16, 2003-Ohio-4108; In re Decker, Athens App. No. 00CA039, 2001-Ohio-2380.

Under Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d), once a child has been in agency custody for twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, the only remaining permanent-custody inquiry is the child's best interests, and no separate finding under subsection (B)(1)(a) is required.

In Re Curry, Unpublished Decision (2-11-2004) · filed 2004-02-11(B)(1)(d)

Pursuant to the plain language of R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d), when a child has been in a children services agency's temporary custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period ending on or after March 18, 1999, a trial court need not find that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time. See, e.g., In re Billingsley, Putnam App. Nos. 12-02-07 and 12-02-08, 2003-Ohio-344; In re Williams, Franklin App. No. 02AP-924, 2002-Ohio-7205; In re Dyal, (Aug. 9, 2001), Hocking App. No. 01CA11. Thus, when considering a permanent custody motion brought pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d), the only other consideration becomes the best interests of the child. A trial court need not conduct an R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a) analysis of whether the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time. Dyal, supra.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d)'s twelve-of-twenty-two-month condition does not require proof that reunification is impossible and does not automatically compel permanent custody, because reunification may still be considered and the motion must be denied if permanent custody is not in the child's best interests.

In Re Cunningham, Unpublished Decision (2-17-2004) · filed 2004-02-17(B)(1)(d)

Under R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d), the court need not find that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time. ... While we agree with ACCS that R.C. 2151.414 does not explicitly require it to prove that the children cannot be reunited with the parents, we disagree with the agency that a trial court may never consider this as a factor in deciding a permanent custody motion. ... Simply because a children services agency files a permanent custody motion pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d) does not automatically require the trial court to grant the motion. While the goal of that statutory provision is to discourage keeping children for prolonged periods of time in a children services agency's custody, the more important factor is the children's best interests. If the court determines that awarding permanent custody to the agency would not serve the children's best interests, the court must deny the permanent custody motion, regardless of the length of time that the children have been in the agency's custody. While the length of time that the children have been in a children service's agency may be a relevant and important factor, the children's best interest remains the polestar of custody determinations. In re Cunningham, supra.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) does not require an agency to wait twenty-two months before filing for permanent custody once the child has spent twelve qualifying months in temporary custody.

In Re P.C., Unpublished Decision (3-17-2004) · filed 2004-03-17(B)(1)(d)

Swope also contends that R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d) requires that the child must be in temporary custody for 22 months before CSB may file a motion for permanent custody. However, this Court has previously indicated that R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d) does not require that CSB wait 22 months before filing a motion for permanent custody. See In re T.B. , 9th Dist. No. 21124, 2002-Ohio-5036, ¶ 23.

Sections 2151.414(B)(1)(a) and (B)(1)(d) provide alternative permanent-custody grounds, so proof that the child was in agency custody for twelve of twenty-two months satisfies the statutory threshold without a separate inability-to-place finding, subject to the best-interest requirement.

In Re Yeager, Unpublished Decision (3-25-2004) · filed 2004-03-25(B)(1)(a) and (B)(1)(d)

In this case, the trial court found that the minor children could not be placed with either parent at this time or within a reasonable period of time and that the children had been in the temporary custody of Fairfield County Children's Services for 12 of the past consecutive 22 months. These are alternate findings pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1). See R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a) and (d) respectively. Either of those findings, if supported by the evidence, is sufficient in and of itself to base a grant of permanent custody pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1). ... Appellants concede that the minor children were in the temporary custody of the agency for 12 of the past 22 months. Such a finding is enough to satisfy the requirements of R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1). See In Re: Whipple Children, Stark App. No. 2002CA00406, 2003-Ohio-1101. A review of the record supports the trial court's finding. Accordingly, we will proceed to an analysis of whether the grants of permanent custody were in the children's best interests.

Sections 2151.414(B)(1)(d) and (D) require a separate best-interest showing even when the child has spent twelve months in agency custody during a consecutive twenty-two-month period, and meaningful case-plan progress and a positive parent-child bond may support denying permanent custody.

In the Matter of Snow, Unpublished Decision (3-29-2004) · filed 2004-03-29(B)(1)(d), (D)

In the instant matter, even though both of the children may have been in the temporary custody of the PCDJFS for more than twelve of a consecutive twenty-two month period, that is not the only factor in determining whether to grant permanent custody. The best interest of the children must also be considered. ... Even though the children had been in the temporary custody of the PCDJFS for more than twelve of a consecutive twenty-two month period, the evidence showed that appellee had made enough progress with her case plan to justify the court's decision that reunification could be a realistic possibility. ... Furthermore, the PCDJFS has failed to show that giving permanent custody to the PCDJFS would be in the best interest of the children. Appellee and the children demonstrated a bond. As previously mentioned, appellee complied with her case plan and appeared to be in a position to provide for her children's basic and medical needs. ... Despite the guardian ad litem's report and the recommendation of Wooley, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence presented to support the trial court's decision to not grant the PCDJFS's motion for permanent custody. Hence, it is our view that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. It is also our position that it was in the best interest of the children for the trial court to deny the permanent custody motion of the PCDJFS.

Satisfying section 2151.414(B)(1)(d)'s twelve-of-twenty-two-month condition is not enough by itself to grant permanent custody, because the court must also analyze best interest under division (D), and realistic reunification may support denial.

In the Matter of Cutright, Unpublished Decision (3-29-2004) · filed 2004-03-29(B)(1)(d) and (D)

In the instant matter, even though both of the children may have been in the temporary custody of the PCDJFS for more than twelve of a consecutive twenty-two month period, that is not the only factor in determining whether to grant permanent custody. The best interest of the children must also be considered. ... If the juvenile court decides that one of the four circumstances in R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a) through (d) is present, then the court continues with an analysis of the child's best interest. ... Even though the children had been in the temporary custody of the PCDJFS for more than twelve of a consecutive twenty-two month period, the evidence showed that appellee had made enough progress with her case plan to justify the court's decision that reunification could be a realistic possibility. ... Furthermore, the PCDJFS has failed to show that giving permanent custody to the PCDJFS would be in the best interest of the children. ... Despite the guardian ad litem's report and the recommendation of Wooley, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence presented to support the trial court's decision to not grant the PCDJFS's motion for permanent custody. Hence, it is our view that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. It is also our position that it was in the best interest of the children for the trial court to deny the permanent custody motion of the PCDJFS.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d)'s twelve-of-twenty-two-month ground does not violate substantive due process because a parent has twelve months before permanent-custody proceedings to demonstrate ability, suitability, or fitness to care for the child.

In the Matter of Gomer, Unpublished Decision (4-5-2004) · filed 2004-04-05(B)(1)(d)

We do not believe that R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d) deprives a parent of fundamentally fair procedures. Prior to instituting a permanent custody proceeding under R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d), the parent has twelve months to demonstrate that the parent is able, suitable, or fit to care for the child. Thus, the parent is not deprived of the ability to be reunified with the child or to demonstrate the parent's ability, suitability, or fitness to care for the child. ... We agree with the conclusions of the Fourth and Tenth Districts and conclude that R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d) does not deprive a parent of due process rights. We also conclude that Carl's substantive due process rights were protected during the proceedings for permanent custody in this case.

A supported finding under Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) that the child spent twelve months in agency custody during a consecutive twenty-two-month period independently satisfies the statutory ground for permanent custody, so no separate no-placement finding is necessary.

In the Matter of Adams, Unpublished Decision (4-6-2004) · filed 2004-04-06(B)(1)(d)

On appeal, appellant only challenges the trial court's determination that the minor child cannot or should not be placed with her in a reasonable time. We find it unnecessary to address appellant's argument concerning whether the child can be placed with her within a reasonable time because the record supports the trial court's other conclusion that the minor child has been in the temporary custody of the agency for more than twelve out of the last twenty-two months pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d). ... The minor child's caseworker, Ms. Armstead, testified the minor child has been in SCDJFS's custody for approximately eighteen months. Tr. at 56. Thus, having made this finding, which is supported by the record, it was not necessary for the trial court to also make a finding that the minor child could not be returned within a reasonable time. See In re Whipple Children, Stark App. No. 2002CA00406, 2003-Ohio-1101, at ¶ 26.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d)'s twelve-month temporary-custody ground must exist when the permanent-custody motion is filed, and time accrued before the later hearing cannot cure a premature motion.

In Re C.W., Unpublished Decision (4-21-2004) · filed 2004-04-21(B)(1)(d)

This Court has recently considered the question of whether the first prong of the permanent custody test may be satisfied by R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d) when the agency files a motion for permanent custody before the child has been in temporary custody for 12 months. In re K.G., S.G., T.G., 9th Dist. Nos. 03CA0066, 03CA0067, and 03CA0068, 2004-Ohio-1421. We held that it may not, and stated, "It is fundamental that a motion for permanent custody must allege grounds that currently exist." Id. ... Because the child had not been in the temporary custody of CSB for 12 months at the time the motion for permanent custody was filed in the present case, any reliance on such fact in support of the first prong of the permanent custody test is erroneous. The trial court erred in relying on this ground in granting permanent custody to CSB.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) permits permanent custody only upon clear and convincing evidence that an enumerated circumstance exists and that permanent custody is in the child's best interest, and subsection (B)(1)(d) is satisfied when the child has spent at least twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period in agency custody.

In Re A.L., Unpublished Decision (11-18-2004) · filed 2004-11-18(B)(1)(d)

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) one of the factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1) to exist, and (2) an award of permanent custody to be in the best interest of the child. ... Thus, R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d), which requires the children to be in the temporary custody of the agency for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period was satisfied. ... We conclude the trial court had sufficient credible evidence before it to satisfy the requirements of the statute.

When a child has been in temporary agency custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, the court need not also find that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent.

In Re Cunningham, Unpublished Decision (12-6-2004) · filed 2004-12-06(B)(1)(d)

Where the juvenile court finds pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d) that the child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies for twelve or more of a consecutive twenty-two month period ending on or after March 18, 1999, the court need not find that 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 pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a) and 2151.414 (E).

When a child has been in an agency's temporary custody for more than twelve of the preceding twenty-two months, § 2151.414(B)(1)(d) does not require a finding that the child cannot be returned to a parent within a reasonable time before the court proceeds to the best-interest inquiry.

In Re Hayes, Unpublished Decision (12-13-2004) · filed 2004-12-13(B)(1)(d)

In the instant case, the trial court found the children had been in the temporary custody of the department for more than 12 out of the last 22 months pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d). Accordingly, the trial court was not required to make a finding the children could not be returned within a reasonable time, and appropriately proceeded to the best interest portion of the hearing.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) permits permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence shows that permanent custody is in 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 Re Moore, Unpublished Decision (1-5-2005) · filed 2005-01-05(B)(1)(d)

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. ... The children were removed from their home on September 27, 2001. The court adjudicated them dependent on December 12, 2001. The children remained in appellee's temporary custody until the permanent custody hearing, which was not held until January 22, 2004. Thus, the children were in appellee's temporary custody for well over 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period. ... Consequently, as long as competent, credible evidence exists on the record to prove that it is in the children's best interests that the court grant their permanent custody to appellee, we must affirm the trial court's judgment.

When a child has been in agency temporary custody for at least twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, permanent custody requires clear and convincing evidence that it is in the child’s best interest, without further consideration of whether the parents remedied the conditions causing removal or whether the child can or should be placed with them.

In Re T.T., Unpublished Decision (1-24-2005) · filed 2005-01-24(B)(1)(d)

Under R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1), when a child has been in temporary custody for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, a juvenile court is only required to find by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child's best interest. In re L.D., Clinton App. No. CA2004-03-007, 2004-Ohio-4000 , ¶ 14-15 . The finding that the child has been in temporary custody for this period obviates consideration of whether the parents have remedied the conditions which caused the removal of the children, and whether the children could not, or should not be placed with the parents. Id., citing In re Nice, 141 Ohio App.3d 445 , 459 , 2001-Ohio-3214 .

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) supplies a statutory basis for permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence shows that the child spent at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period in temporary agency custody.

In Re Davis, Unpublished Decision (2-4-2005) · filed 2005-02-04(B)(1)(d)

The trial court noted that the children have had extensive involvement with children services in both Lake and Ashtabula Counties. While residing in Lake County, the children were removed from the home in January 2001 and were not returned until July 2002. After relocating to Ashtabula County, the children were removed from the home in April 2003 and had not been returned at the time of the hearing on March 25, 2004. Thus, the trial court properly followed the statutory requirement and found by clear and convincing evidence that the children had been in the temporary custody of a public children service agency for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period in accordance with R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d).

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) does not require a finding that a child cannot or should not be returned to either parent within a reasonable time when the child has been in agency custody for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period; only the child's best-interest determination is necessary.

In Re Ch. O., Unpublished Decision (3-10-2005) · filed 2005-03-10(B)(1)(d)

It is important to note that when R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d) applies, the court is not required to make a determination that the child cannot or should not be returned to either parent within a reasonable time. ... The trial court was not obligated to make that determination based on the children's custody status; the only consideration necessary was the best interest determination for the children.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) authorizes permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence establishes that custody is in the child's best interest and the child has been in agency temporary custody for at least twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period.

In Matter of S.P., Unpublished Decision (3-14-2005) · filed 2005-03-14(B)(1)(d)

S.P. had been in the temporary custody of BCCSB for approximately 16 consecutive months at the time BCCSB filed the permanent custody motion, well over the "twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period" in R.C. 2151.414 (B)-(1)(d). Therefore, once the juvenile court found that permanent custody was in S.P.'s best interest, the court had the statutory authority to grant permanent custody.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) permits permanent custody upon clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and that a listed circumstance applies; subsection (B)(1)(d) is satisfied when the child has been in agency custody for at least twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, without a separate showing that a subsection (E) factor applies.

In the Matter of Faulk, Unpublished Decision (3-18-2005) · filed 2005-03-18(B)(1)(d)

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). ... She contends that appellee did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that one of the R.C. 2151.414 (E) factors applied to her. However, appellant fails to consider R.C. 2151.414 (B), which provides: ... "(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 children in this case have been in appellee's temporary custody for well over 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period. Appellee first gained emergency custody of the children in March 2000. Since that time, they have remained in appellee's custody. As the trial court noted, these children need some permanency in their lives. They have spent considerable amounts of their young lives in foster care. Thus, since the children fall under R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d), the trial court did not abuse its discretion in this respect.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) permits permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence shows that it is in the child's best interest and the child has been in agency custody for at least twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, without a separate finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

In Re M.W., Unpublished Decision (3-24-2005) · filed 2005-03-24(B)(1)(d)

R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1) states that before a court can grant permanent custody to a moving agency, it must determine, 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: ... (d) the child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or private child placing agencies for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period ending on or after March 18, 1999. ... That being the case, the court had no obligation to determine whether the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time. ... The sole consideration at this point is whether permanent custody was in the best interests of the child.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) permits an award of permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence shows that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and the child has spent at least 12 months in agency temporary custody during a consecutive 22-month period.

In Re Na'eem A., Unpublished Decision (4-8-2005) · filed 2005-04-08(B)(1)(d)

Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d), the trial court may grant permanent custody of a child to a movant if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child to do so and the child has been in the temporary custody of the agency for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period. The trial court's finding that R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d) applied is supported by the record and is sufficient to support granting permanent custody to LCCS.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) permits permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence shows that permanent custody is in the child's best interests and the child has been in an agency's temporary custody for at least twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period.

In Re D.B., Unpublished Decision (4-29-2005) · filed 2005-04-29(B)(1)(d)

A trial court may terminate a parent's right to his or her child and grant permanent custody to a government agency if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the grant of permanent custody is in the best interests of the child and finds that one of the factors listed in R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1) applies. ... Additionally, the evidence supported the magistrate's finding that the factor listed in R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d) applied allowing the MCCS's motion for permanent custody. Except for a period of less than six months, D.B. had been in the custody of MCCS for all three years of her life. She was in the custody of children's services for more than twelve months of the last consecutive twenty two months. This necessary finding by the magistrate was supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) permits permanent custody when a child has spent more than twelve of the preceding twenty-two months in agency custody and permanent custody is in the child's best interests, despite the parent's substantial completion of the case plan.

In Re Hines, Unpublished Decision (5-3-2005) · filed 2005-05-03(B)(1)(d)

R.C. 2151.414 (B) enables the court to grant permanent custody if the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child. ... Although appellant has substantially completed the objectives of the case plan, the time pursuant to statute has run. The children have been placed in appellee's temporary custody since 2002, more than twelve of the last twenty-two months. R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d); In re Young Children, 76 Ohio St.3d 632 , 1996-Ohio-45 . ... Based upon the evidence and the report of the guardian ad litem, we find the decision to grant permanent custody to appellee to be supported by clear and convincing evidence and to be in the children's best interests.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d)'s twelve-of-twenty-two-month temporary-custody finding is an alternative, independently sufficient ground for permanent custody, so the agency need not prove that the child cannot be returned within a reasonable time before the court proceeds to best interests.

In Re Langford Children, Unpublished Decision (5-9-2005) · filed 2005-05-09(B)(1)(d)

As noted in appellant's First Assignment of Error, in the case sub judice, the trial court found the children had been in the temporary custody of the agency for more than twelve of the last twenty-two months pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d). As such, the trial court was not required to make a finding that the children could not be returned within a reasonable time and appropriately proceeded to the best interest portion of the hearing. {¶ 43} Because the trial court made a finding pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d), the agency was not required to present evidence regarding whether the children could be returned within a reasonable amount of time. Therefore, appellant was not prejudiced under the second prong of the Strickland test by counsel's failure to present evidence of her compliance with the case plan objectives. See In re Hayes/Reichenbach Children (Dec. 13, 2004), Stark App. No. 2004CA00278, 2004-Ohio-6751 , at ¶ 27 .

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d)'s twelve-of-twenty-two-month requirement is not satisfied when the agency moves for permanent custody only eight months after the child's adjudication and sixty days after receiving temporary custody.

In Re Grossi, Unpublished Decision (5-23-2005) · filed 2005-05-23(B)(1)(d)

{¶ 7} Appellee filed its motion for permanent custody some eight months after the adjudication of the child, and the date of sixty days after it received temporary custody of the child. Appellant argues appellee did not have temporary custody of the child for twelve of the prior twenty-two months pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d). Based upon the authority of the Supreme Court of Ohio in In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163 , 2004-Ohio-6411 , this court agrees. Although the C.W. decision was filed on December 8, 2004, after the trial court's decision on October 18, 2004, we find it was decided while this case was pending before this court and therefore is applicable sub judice.

Section 2151.414(D)(3) permits a court assessing a child's best interest to consider whether the child spent 12 of the prior 22 months in agency custody; it does not require 22 months of agency custody.

In Re Speaks, Unpublished Decision (6-20-2005) · filed 2005-06-20(D)(3)

We will first address appellant's assertion that a trial court cannot make a finding pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (D)(3) unless the children have been in an agency's custody for at least 22 months. We disagree with this assertion. The statute states that a trial court may consider the custodial history of the child in determining what is in the child's best interest, including whether the child has been in the custody of the agency or private child placing agency for 12 out of the prior 22 months. R.C. 2151.414 (D)(3). The statute does not require that the child be in the custody of the agency for 22 months. The statute only requires that the child be in an agency's custody for 12 out of the prior or last 22 months. The 22 month time period merely limits the time period in which the trial court should look to when considering if the child has been in an agency's custody for 12 months.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) authorizes permanent custody when permanent custody is in the child's best interest and the child has been in agency temporary custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period.

In the Matter of S.B., Unpublished Decision (7-25-2005) · filed 2005-07-25(B)(1)(d)

Because the children had been in the temporary custody of BCCSB well over the "twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period" in R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d), once the juvenile court found that permanent custody was in the children's best interest, the court had the statutory authority to grant permanent custody.

Section 2151.414 permits permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence shows that a child has been in agency temporary custody for 12 of 22 consecutive months and that permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In Re Patfield, Unpublished Decision (7-25-2005) · filed 2005-07-25(B)(1)(d), (D)

Permanent custody should be granted to a petitioning agency only where the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the grant of permanent custody is in the best interests of the child; and any of the following apply: (1) 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; (2) the child is abandoned; (3) the child is orphaned, and there are no relatives of the child who are able to take permanent custody; or (4) 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. ... In the instant matter, even though the minor may have been in the temporary custody of appellee for more than twelve of a consecutive twenty-two month period, that is not the only factor in determining whether to grant permanent custody. The best interest of the child must also be considered. ... Our conclusion is that there was sufficient evidence presented to support the trial court's decision to grant appellee's motion for permanent custody. Hence, it is our view that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, and, thus, it was in the best interest of the child for the trial court to grant the permanent custody motion of appellee.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) permits permanent custody when the child has been in agency custody for twelve of the preceding twenty-two months, without an additional finding that the child cannot be returned to a parent within a reasonable time.

In the Matter of Lewis, Unpublished Decision (5-3-2005) · filed 2005-05-03(B)(1)(d)

{¶ 23} On appeal, appellant only challenges the trial court's determination that the minor child cannot or should not be placed with her in a reasonable time. We find it unnecessary to address appellant's argument concerning whether the child can be placed with her within a reasonable time because the record supports the trial court's other conclusion that the minor child has been in the temporary custody of the agency for more than twelve out of the last twenty-two months pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d). {¶ 24} Thus, having made this finding, which is supported by the record, it was not necessary for the trial court to also make a finding that the minor child could not be returned within a reasonable time. See In re Whipple Children, Stark App. No. 2002CA00406, 2003-Ohio-1101, at ¶ 26.

When a child has been in agency custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, the court need not decide under subsection (E) whether the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time and need only determine whether permanent custody is in the child's best interest under subsection (D).

In Re P.S., Unpublished Decision (8-11-2005) · filed 2005-08-11(B)(1)(d), (D), (E)

In the instant case, R.C. 2151.414 (E) is inapplicable because there is no factual dispute as to the trial court's finding that P.S. "is not orphaned but has been in temporary custody of a public children services agency or private child placing agency under one or more separate orders of disposition for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period." P.S. was removed from her home on February 27, 2002 and had not returned as of the trial date in November 2004; therefore, she was in county custody for almost three years for purposes of R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d). Consequently, the court had no obligation to determine whether P.S. cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a) and 2151.414 (E). See, In re: M.H., Cuyahoga App. No. 80620, 2002-Ohio-2968. The only consideration at this point is whether permanent custody is in the best interest of the child pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (D). In re: R.K., Cuyahoga App. No. 82374, 2003-Ohio-6333.

When a child has been in agency custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, the court need not decide whether the child can or should be placed with either parent within a reasonable time and instead considers the child's best interests under subsection (D).

In Re Huffman Children, Unpublished Decision (9-6-2005) · filed 2005-09-06(B)(1)(d)

{¶ 38} Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d), when a child has been in the custody of SCDJFS for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period ending on or after March 18, 1999, a trial court need not engage in an analysis of whether the child can or should be placed with either parent within a reasonable time. See, e.g., In re Williams, supra, In re: Lewis/Louk Children, supra ; In re: Whipple Children. Instead, the only consideration in such a case is the best interests of the child, which is determined by consideration of the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414 (D) in light of the facts of the particular case. Id.

When a child has been in agency temporary custody for at least twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, the court need not also determine that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time and instead proceeds to the statutory best-interest determination.

In Re T.W., Unpublished Decision (10-13-2005) · filed 2005-10-13(B)(1)(d), (D)

It is important to note that when R.C. 2151.414 (D) applies, the court is not required to make a determination that the child cannot or should not be returned to either parent within a reasonable time. ... Here, by the time CCDCFS filed its motion for permanent custody (in January 2004), T.W. had been in temporary custody since January 2002. That is well over 12 out of the last 22 consecutive months. Therefore, the remaining focus of the trial court was to determine what is in the best interest of this child, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d).

Under § 2151.414(B)(1)(d), when a child has been in agency temporary custody for at least twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, the court need consider only whether permanent custody is in the child's best interest, without separately finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

In Re J.L., Unpublished Decision (11-17-2005) · filed 2005-11-17(B)(1)(d)

The toddler had been in county custody for his entire, two-year life. Because subsection (B)(1)(d) applies to him, the court needed to consider only whether permanent custody was in his best interest. The infant, on the other hand, had been alive for only five and a half months at the time of the permanent custody hearing. He could not, therefore, qualify under this section of the law.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) establishes the required permanent-custody condition when a child has been in an agency's temporary custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period.

In Re T.W., Unpublished Decision (12-15-2005) · filed 2005-12-15(B)(1)(d)

Specifically, the condition under R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d) states that "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 parties in this action stipulated that the children were removed from the home in September 2003. The trial court found that the children had been in the custody of the CCDCFS since September 2003, had been in the same foster home since placement, and had been there longer than twelve months. We find that there was clear and convincing evidence to establish that the condition in R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d) was met.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d)'s twelve-of-twenty-two-month ground requires the child to have been in agency custody for at least twelve months when the permanent-custody motion is filed, while subsection (B)(1)(a) applies when that time threshold has not been met and the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

In Re Adkins, Unpublished Decision (1-27-2006) · filed 2006-01-27(B)(1)(a), (B)(1)(d)

In the case of In Re: C.W., 104 Ohio St. 3d 163 2004-Ohio-6411 , 818 N.E. 2d 1176 , the Ohio Supreme Court held a child must be in the temporary custody of the agency for at least 12 months at the time the motion for permanent custody is filed. ... Appellant's attention is focused on (d), and he is correct that this is not an appropriate ground for placing him in the permanent custody of JFS. ... Thus, it appears the court viewed subsection (a) as the appropriate ground. This ground specifically applies when the child has not been in the temporary custody of the agency for the requisite amount of time.

When a child has been in agency temporary custody for 12 of the preceding 22 months, the court need not find that the child cannot be returned to a parent within a reasonable time before addressing the child's best interests.

In Re Chestnut Children, Unpublished Decision (2-10-2006) · filed 2006-02-10(B)(1)(d)

In the case sub judice, the trial court found the children had been in the temporary custody of CSB for more than twelve out of the last twenty-two months, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d). The children have been in temporary custody since July 2, 2002. Therefore, the trial court was not required to make a finding that the children could not be returned within a reasonable time, and proceeded directly to the best interests portion of the hearing. See In re Whipple Children, Stark App. No. 2002CA00406, 2003-Ohio-1101, at ¶ 26. The record supports the trial court's finding under R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d) and therefore, the trial court's decision is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

The twelve-of-twenty-two-month ground for permanent custody is measured when the agency files its motion; if twelve months have not yet elapsed, the agency must proceed under the alternative requiring proof that the child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

In Re Samples, Unpublished Decision (2-27-2006) · filed 2006-02-27(B)(1)(a), (d)

Although they had been in temporary custody for twelve of twenty-two months at the time of the hearing, the relevant date for use of this provision is the date the agency files the motion. ... Using any date, CSB's motion was filed prior to the expiration of twelve months. Thus, the "12 of 22" provision is inapplicable, and R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a) is the only remaining alternative factor required for permanent custody in this case.

A finding that a child has been in an agency's temporary custody for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period permits the court to proceed to the best-interest determination without making further findings.

In Re D.P., Unpublished Decision (3-2-2006) · filed 2006-03-02(B)(1)(d)

In addition to the above, the trial court also found that the children had been in the temporary custody of CCDCFS for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period ending on or after March 18, 1999. By making this finding, the trial court was not required to make further findings before proceeding to a best interest determination.

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

In Re Hilyard, Unpublished Decision (4-13-2006) · filed 2006-04-13(B)(1)(d)

R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d) permits a trial court to grant permanent custody of a child to an agency if the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that the child's best interest would be served by the award of permanent custody and the child has been in the temporary custody of the agency for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period.

When a child has been in an agency’s temporary custody for more than twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, the trial court need only determine the child’s best interests by clear and convincing evidence.

In Re Lopez · filed 2006-05-08(B)(1)(d)

Since the children in the present case were in the temporary custody of WCDJFS for more than 12 months out of a consecutive 22-month period under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), the trial court was required only to determine the best interests of the children by clear and convincing evidence.

When a child has been in an agency's temporary custody for at least twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, the court need only determine whether permanent custody serves the child's best interests and need not decide whether the child can or should be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

In Re Brown, Unpublished Decision (5-26-2006) · filed 2006-05-26(B)(1)(d)

Pursuant R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d), when a child has been in a children services agency's temporary custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period ending on or after March 18, 1999, a trial court need not find that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time. See, e.g., In re Billingsley, Putnam App. Nos. 12-02-07 and 12-02-08, 2003-Ohio-344; In re Williams, Franklin App. No. 02AP-924, 2002-Ohio-7205; In re Dyal (Aug. 9, 2001), Hocking App. No. 01CA11. Thus, when considering a permanent custody motion brought pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d), the only other consideration becomes the best interests of the child. A trial court need not conduct an R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a) analysis of whether the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time. Dyal ; see, also, In re Berkley, Pickaway App. Nos. 04CA12, 04CA13, and 04CA14, 2004-Ohio-4797 , at ¶ 61.

When a permanent-custody motion is filed before the child has spent twelve months in temporary agency custody, the adjudication may rest on section 2151.414(B)(1)(a); unnecessary additional consideration of the twelve-of-twenty-two-month ground in section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) is harmless.

In Re Morris, Unpublished Decision (6-26-2006) · filed 2006-06-26(B)(1)(a) and (B)(1)(d)

It is true that at the time the motion was filed Chloe had been in temporary custody for approximately 10 months; however, the permanent custody motion was prosecuted and adjudicated through the application of R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a) which provides that the child was in temporary custody with a children services agency for less than twelve of twenty-two consecutive months prior to the filing of the motion for permanent custody. ... Though the additional consideration of R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d) was not necessary because the adjudication should be based on R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a) alone, the trial court merely created a harmless error by considering R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d).

Section 2151.414(B) permits a trial court to grant an agency permanent custody when the placement is in the child's best interest and the child has spent at least twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period in the agency's temporary custody.

In Re D.G., Unpublished Decision (10-20-2006) · filed 2006-10-20(B)

A trial court may give a children services agency permanent custody of a minor child if it decides that the placement is in the best interest of the child and if the child has been in the temporary custody of the agency for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period. R.C. 2151.414 (B). {¶ 5} MCCS obtained temporary custody of all of the children in February 2003 and retained custody through the hearing in January 2005. Thus, the children were in the custody of MCCS more than twelve of twenty-two consecutive months.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) supports permanent custody when the child has spent at least twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period in agency temporary custody, making objections about the absence of a case plan or home investigation irrelevant to that statutory ground.

In Re Weaver, Unpublished Decision (10-27-2006) · filed 2006-10-27(B)(1)(d)

R.C. 2151.414 (B) addresses under what circumstances a trial court may grant permanent custody. ... These arguments are irrelevant since the trial court granted permanent custody to JFS pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d). Appellant does not challenge the trial court's finding that his daughter was not in the temporary custody of JFS for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period. The record contains evidence that the minor child was originally placed in the temporary custody of JFS on February 7, 2005, and on May 3, 2006, the date of the dispositional and adjudicatory hearing, the child was still in the temporary custody of JFS. Thus, the trial court's decision that permanent custody should be granted pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d) was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) permits permanent custody when a child has been in agency temporary custody for twelve of the preceding twenty-two months without a separate determination that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent, but the court must still find by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In Re K.R., Unpublished Decision (11-3-2006) · filed 2006-11-03(B)(1)(d)

Once a court determines that one of the above conditions exist, it must then determine by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the best interest of the children by considering the factors listed in R.C. 2151.414 (D) as well as any other relevant factors. It is important to note that when R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d) applies, the court is not required to make a determination that the child cannot or should not be returned to either parent within a reasonable time. ... Because it is undisputed the children were in the custody of the Agency for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two period, the Appellant's first assignment of error is overruled.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) measures the twelve-of-twenty-two-month custody period using the twenty-two months preceding the filing of the permanent-custody motion; once that ground and the child’s best interest are established, the court need not also find that the child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

In the Matter of A.W., Unpublished Decision (1-25-2007) · filed 2007-01-25(B)(1)(d)

The Ohio Supreme Court has held that when determining whether a child has been in the agency's custody for 12 of the previous 22 months, the relevant time period to consider is the 22 months prior to the date the permanent custody motion was filed. In re C.W. 104 Ohio St.3d, 163 , 2004-Ohio-6411 , ¶ 26 . In this case, the permanent custody motion was filed on December 14, 2004, so the relevant 22-month time period was from February 14, 2003 to December 14, 2004. As the children were in the temporary custody of BCCSB from before February 2003 until June 2004, they were in the temporary custody of the agency for more than 12 months of the relevant 22-month time period. {¶ 13} After the juvenile court determined that the children had been in the temporary custody of BCCSB for 12 months of a continuous 22-month period, it was unnecessary for the trial court to make a determination that the children could not or should not be placed with their father within a reasonable period of time. InreJ.J. , Butler App. No. CA2005-12-525, ¶ 51.

Under § 2151.414(B)(1)(d), once a child has spent at least twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period in agency temporary custody, the court need only assess the child's best interests and need not decide whether the child can or should be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

In Re Johnston, Unpublished Decision (2-26-2007) · filed 2007-02-26(B)(1)(d)

Thus, pursuant to the plain language of R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d), when a child has been in a children services agency's temporary custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period ending on or after March 18, 1999, a trial court need not find that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time. See, e.g., In re Billingsley , Putnam App. Nos. 12-02-07 and 12-02-08, 2003-Ohio-344; In re Williams , Franklin App. No. 02AP-924, 2002-Ohio-7205; In re Dyal (Aug. 9, 2001), Hocking App. No. 01CA11. Consequently, when considering a R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d) permanent custody motion, the only other consideration becomes the child's best interests. A trial court need not conduct an R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a) analysis of whether the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time. Dyal ; see, also, In re Berkley , Pickaway App. Nos. 04CA12, 04CA13, and 04CA14, 2004-Ohio-4797 , at ¶ 61 .

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) permits permanent custody on the twelve-of-twenty-two-month ground only if the child has been in agency custody for at least twelve months when the agency files its motion; when that ground applies, the court need not also decide whether the child can or should be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

In the Matter of McCain, Unpublished Decision (3-23-2007) · filed 2007-03-23(B)(1)(d)

Pursuant to the statute's plain language, when a child has been in an agency's temporary custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period ending on or after March 18, 1999, a trial court need not find that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time. See, e.g ., In re Billingsley , Putnam App. Nos. 12-02-07 and 12-02-08, 2003-Ohio-344; In re Williams , Franklin App. No. 02AP-924, 2002-Ohio-7205. Thus, when considering a permanent custody motion brought pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d), the only other consideration becomes the child's best interests. A trial court need not conduct an R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a) analysis of whether the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time. ... In interpreting R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1), the Ohio Supreme Court has held that the child must have been in the custody of the agency for at least twelve of the previous twenty-two months before the filing of the permanent custody motion in order for the trial court to grant permanent custody based on R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d) grounds. In re C.W. , 104 Ohio St.3d 163 , 2004-Ohio-6411 , 818 N.E.2d 1176 , at ¶ 26. "In other words, the time that passes between the filing of a motion for permanent custody and the permanent-custody hearing does not count toward the 12-month period set forth in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d)." Id.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) makes a child’s placement in agency custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, together with clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child’s best interest, a sufficient basis for granting permanent custody.

In Matter of Marple, 2006ca00276 (4-16-2007) · filed 2007-04-16(B)(1)(d)

In this case, the trial court found that two of the four circumstances delineated in R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1) were found by clear and convincing evidence. First, the trial court found that the Marple children have been in DJFS custody for 12 or more months in a consecutive 22 month period under division (d) of the statute. No party has appealed this finding. Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1) this conclusive finding, coupled with a showing by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the best interest of the children, provides a sufficient basis for this Court to affirm the trial court.

Section 2151.414(B) permits permanent custody when the court finds that custody is in the child's best interest and the child has been in agency custody for twelve of twenty-two consecutive months, without also finding under subsection (B)(1)(a) that the child cannot or should not be returned to a parent within a reasonable time.

In Matter of J.P., 5-06-52 (4-23-2007) · filed 2007-04-23(B)(1)(d)

However, when a trial court finds that R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d) has been met and makes a best interest determination, it is not required to also determine that the children could not or should not be returned to any of the parents within a reasonable time under R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a). In re William S. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 95 , 99 ; In re Lopez , 166 Ohio App.3d 688 , 2006-Ohio-2251 ; R.C. 2151.414 (B). Therefore, our review could end here.

When a child has been in a children services agency's custody for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period, permanent custody requires only a best-interest determination.

In Re D.B., 21856 (6-29-2007) · filed 2007-06-29(B)(1)(d)

If the child has been in the custody of the children services agency for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period, the court need only determine whether permanent custody is in the child's best interest. R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d).

Section 2151.414(B)(1) permits permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence establishes that custody serves the child's best interest and an enumerated circumstance, including twelve months in agency custody during a consecutive twenty-two-month period.

In Matter of pendziwiatr/hannah Children, 2007 Ap 03 0025 (7-20-2007) · filed 2007-07-20(B)(1)(d)

Therefore, R.C. 2151.414 (B) establishes a two-pronged analysis the trial court must apply when ruling on a motion for permanent custody. In practice, the trial court will usually 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. ... Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1), this conclusive finding, coupled with a showing by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the best interest of the children, provides a sufficient basis for this Court to affirm the trial court.

When a child has been in a children services agency's temporary custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, the court need not also determine whether the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time; the remaining inquiry is the child's best interests.

In Matter of J.C., 07ca834 (7-23-2007) · filed 2007-07-23(B)(1)(d)

Pursuant to the plain language of R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d), when a child has been in a children services agency's temporary custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period ending on or after March 18, 1999, a trial court need not find that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time. See, e.g., In re Billingsley , Putnam App. Nos. 12-02-07 and 12-02-08, 2003-Ohio-344; In re Williams , Franklin App. No. 02AP-924, 2002-Ohio-7205; In re Dyal (Aug. 9, 2001), Hocking App. No. 01CA11. Consequently, when considering a R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d) permanent custody motion, the only other consideration becomes the child's best interests. A trial court need not conduct an R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a) analysis of whether the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) still requires a finding that permanent custody is in the child's best interest, even when the agency moved for permanent custody after the twelve-month annual review.

In Re Egypt H., Unpublished Decision (3-14-2007) · filed 2007-03-14(B)(1)(d)

{¶ 89} In its second assignment of error, LCCS contends that the trial court erred when it denied its motion for permanent custody because, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d), the motion for permanent custody had been filed after the 12 month annual review. A determination under this section still requires a finding that an award of permanent custody to the agency is in the children's best interests. Based on our disposition of LCCS's first assignment of error, we find LCCS's second assignment of error not-well-taken.

Under § 2151.414(D)(3), a child enters temporary custody on the earlier of adjudication or sixty days after removal, and the twelve-month custody period runs from that statutory entry date.

In Re D.J., 88646 (4-26-2007) · filed 2007-04-26(D)(3)

R.C. 2151.414 (D) provides that "[f]or purposes of this division, a child shall be considered to have entered the temporary custody of an agency on the earlier of the date the child is adjudicated pursuant to section 2151.28 of the Revised Code or the date that is sixty days after the removal of the child from the home." D.J. was not adjudicated a dependent child until January 18, 2006. Sixty days after he was removed from his home, which would clearly be the earlier date, would have been sixty days from June 17, 2005, which would be August 16, 2005. Twelve months from August 16, 2005 would be August 16, 2006, over one month after the dispositional hearing had already taken place. Thus, the trial court incorrectly found this best interest factor under R.C. 2151.414 (D)(3).

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) provides grounds for permanent custody when a child has been in an agency's temporary custody for more than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period.

In Matter of K.M.R., 07ap-191 (9-25-2007) · filed 2007-09-25(B)(1)(d)

{¶ 10} The evidence demonstrated K.L.R. was placed in the temporary custody of FCCS on August 2, 2004; K.M.R. was placed in the temporary custody of FCCS on March 8, 2005. FCCS filed its motion for permanent custody on March 30, 2006. Because the children were in the custody of FCCS for more than 12 months out of a consecutive 22-month period of time, FCCS was required to file a permanent custody motion. See R.C. 2151.413 (D)(1). This period of custody also provided grounds to award FCCS permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d). Accordingly, the evidence before the trial court met the requirements of R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d).

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d)'s twelve-of-twenty-two-month ground is an alternative to finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent, and the court must also determine that permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In Matter of Celano, 2007 Ca 00141 (10-22-2007) · filed 2007-10-22(B)(1)(d)

Revised Code § 2151.414 (B) thereby establishes a two-pronged analysis the trial court must apply when ruling on a motion for permanent custody. In practice, the trial court will usually 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. ... 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 SCDJFS' motion for permanent custody. In re Langford Children , Stark App. No. 2004CA00349, 2005-Ohio-2304 , at ¶ 17 . Upon review, we agree with the trial court's finding that R.C. § 2151.414 (B)(1)(d) is applicable to the facts of this case. We therefore conclude the trial court's finding with regard to this issue is not against the manifest weight or sufficiency of the evidence.

When the twelve-of-twenty-two-month condition in subsection (B)(1)(d) is satisfied, the court need not determine under subsection (B)(1)(a) whether the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

In Re T.S., 07ap-624 (12-13-2007) · filed 2007-12-13(B)(1)(d)

The time requirements under R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d) having been satisfied, it was unnecessary for the magistrate and the trial court to determine whether the children could or should be placed with either parent within a reasonable time under R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a) and 2151.414 (E)(1). See In re S.M. , Franklin App. No. 05AP-1262, 2006-Ohio-2529 , at ¶ 12 (findings made under R.C. 2151.414 [B][1][a] and [B][1][d] are in the alternative; either will independently support a grant of permanent custody), citing In re Sunderman , Stark App. No. 2004CA00093, 2004-Ohio-4608 , at ¶ 48 .

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) satisfies the threshold for permanent custody when a child has been in an agency's temporary custody for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, making a separate finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with a parent unnecessary and leaving the child's best interest for determination.

In Matter of Coone, 2007-Coa-016 (1-3-2008) · filed 2008-01-03(B)(1)(d)

Therefore, R.C. 2151.414 (B) establishes a two-pronged analysis the trial court must apply when ruling on a motion for permanent custody. In practice, the trial court will usually 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. ... Clear and convincing evidence established that Brandon was in the temporary custody of ACDJFS for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period. Consequently, even though the trial court addressed the fact that he could not be placed with appellant within a reasonable time or should not be placed with appellant, this finding was unnecessary to the resolution of this case. ... The only consideration in such a case is the best interests of the child, which is determined by consideration of the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414 (D).

When a child has been in agency custody for at least twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, permanent custody requires a determination that it is in the child's best interest, but not a finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

In Re D.W., 22331 (2-1-2008) · filed 2008-02-01(B)(1)(d)

If the child has been in the custody of the children services agency for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period, the court need only determine whether permanent custody is in the child's best interest. R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d). {¶ 13} Here, the record establishes that D.W. had been in temporary custody for more than twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two month period at the time that MCCS filed its motion for permanent custody. Accordingly, the trial court was not required to find that D.W. could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parents.

A child’s presence in agency custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, together with clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child’s best interest, is sufficient to grant permanent custody to the agency.

In Re Dingey, Ct2007-0058 (3-4-2008) · filed 2008-03-04(B)(1)(d)

First, the trial court found that the child has been in MCCS custody for 12 or more months in a consecutive 22 month period under division (d) of the statute. Appellant has not appealed this finding. Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1) this conclusive finding, coupled with a showing by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the best interest of the children, provides a sufficient basis for this Court to affirm the trial court.

For the twelve-of-twenty-two-month condition, temporary custody is calculated from the earlier of the child's adjudication or sixty days after removal from the home.

In Matter of Napier, 07 Ca 17 (3-24-2008) · filed 2008-03-24(B)(1)(d)

Before a public children-services agency or private child-placing agency can move for permanent custody of a child on R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d) grounds, the child must have been in the temporary custody of an agency for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period. ... By our count, sixty days would have lapsed post-removal on May 10, 2005. Using the earlier of these two dates, May 10, 2005, as the starting point, Sierena had continuously been in temporary custody of the agency for more than twelve months as of the date of the filing of the permanent custody motion on December 12, 2006. ... Accordingly, we hold the trial court did not commit reversible error in applying the "12 of 22" rule of R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d) under the circumstances of this case.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) satisfies the first prong of Ohio's permanent-custody test when a child has been in agency temporary custody for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, making further first-prong findings unnecessary.

In Re J.T., 13-07-31 (4-7-2008) · filed 2008-04-07(B)(1)(d)

The evidence demonstrated that J.T. had been in the temporary custody of the SCJFS for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period prior to the SCJFS filing its motion for permanent custody. 2 See R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d). Additionally, it is undisputed that M.T. has been in the temporary custody of the SCJFS for at least 12 months. 3 {¶ 34} Based on the foregoing, we find that the record supports the juvenile court's findings so as to satisfy the first prong of the permanent custody test. ... However, because the juvenile court determined, by clear and convincing evidence, that R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d) applied to the facts of the present case, the court was not required to make further determinations or consider other factors as to the first prong of the permanent custody test. See In re Scott , 3 rd Dist. No. 13-07-18, 2007-Ohio-6426 at ¶ 35 .

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) is satisfied when clear and convincing evidence shows that a child was in agency care for more than 12 of the 22 months immediately preceding the permanent-custody motion.

In Matter of Chicase, 2007-T-0119 (4-23-2008) · filed 2008-04-23(B)(1)(d)

Here, the trial court determined, by clear and convincing evidence, that Nicolas and Robert "have been in care for over 12 [of] the 22 month period immediately preceding the TCCSB Motion for Permanent Custody, and the ORC 2151.414E [sic] factors were [therefore] not considered." This finding was made pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d) and is supported by the record.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) permits a court to proceed directly to the child's best-interest test once the child has been in agency temporary custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period.

In Matter of Minton, Ct2007-0049 (6-6-2008) · filed 2008-06-06(B)(1)(d)

A clear interpretation of the statute sets forth that once the "magic" time limits of subsection (B)(1)(d) have passed, a trial court may move to a best interest test. Under subsection (B)(1)(a), the child must not have 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. In the case sub judice, the trial court specifically found the children had been in appellee's temporary custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period, therefore R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d) is applicable to the facts of this case, and appellant did not challenge the trial court's finding under said subsection. See, In re Canterucci Children , Stark App. No. 2006CA00144, 2006-Ohio-4969 .

When a child has been in agency custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, the agency need not prove that the child cannot or should not be placed with a parent, and the remaining consideration is the child's best interests.

In Matter of J.Y., 07-Ca-35 (7-11-2008) · filed 2008-07-11(B)(1)(d)

Where children have been in agency custody for the required time, the agency does not have to establish that the child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with a parent. The only consideration is the child's best interests.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) allows the twelve-of-twenty-two-month temporary-custody factor to support permanent custody without a separate determination that the child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

In Re R.F., 08ap-270 (8-12-2008) · filed 2008-08-12(B)(1)(d)

{¶ 15} As we noted above, R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1) also requires a court to determine that one or more of the factors listed in that section applies. Here, the trial court determined that both R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a), which states that the child cannot or should not be placed with parents within a reasonable time, and (d), which states that the child had been in temporary custody at least 12 of the previous 22 months, apply here. {¶ 16} The parties agree, as the trial court found, that R.F. had been in temporary custody for at least 12 of the previous 22 months. Therefore, it is unnecessary to determine whether R.F. could be placed with mother within a reasonable time.

In determining whether a child has been in agency custody for twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, a court may not count time after the agency filed its permanent-custody motion.

In Re A.H., 22284 (5-2-2008) · filed 2008-05-02(B)(1)(d)

However, in determining whether a child has been in the custody of the agency for the twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period, the court may not consider the period of time subsequent to the filing of the agency's motion for permanent custody.

Once a child has been in agency custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, the court need not also find that the child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time and need only determine whether permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In Re Keckler, 8-08-08 (9-15-2008) · filed 2008-09-15(B)(1)(d)

Once this finding has been made, any finding under R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a) is unnecessary and, if against the manifest weight of the evidence, is harmless error. Once the trial court correctly made its finding under R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d), the trial court need only make a determination as to whether termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the children. R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1) and (D).

A child’s placement in an agency’s temporary custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period is sufficient by itself to support a grant of permanent custody.

In Re Young, 2008ca00135 (10-20-2008) · filed 2008-10-20(B)(1)(d)

The children have been in appellee's temporary custody for eighteen and a half months. This finding is supported by the evidence and "is sufficient in and of itself to base a grant of permanent custody pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)." In re Speaks , Licking App. No. 2004CA0090, 2005-Ohio-3526 , ¶ 43.

A finding that a child has been in agency custody for at least twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, together with a best-interest finding, is sufficient to support permanent custody under Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d).

In Matter of Calhoun, 2008 Ca 00118 (10-20-2008) · filed 2008-10-20(B)(1)(d)

In the case at bar, the trial court made findings pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a) and R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d). Appellant has not challenged the trial court's finding that the children have been in the agency's custody for more than twelve of twenty-two consecutive months. R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d). The record established that since their removal on October 12, 2006, the children have been in the temporary custody of SCDJFS. This is a period in excess of twelve months of a twenty-two month period ending on or after March 18, 1999. This finding alone in conjunction with a best interest finding is sufficient to support the grant of permanent custody.

When a child has been in a children services agency's temporary custody for at least twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, the court need not also find that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time; the remaining inquiry is the child's best interest.

In Matter of B.D., 08ca3016 (11-26-2008) · filed 2008-11-26(B)(1)(d)

First, and contrary to Appellant's contention, it is important to note that "[p]ursuant to the plain language of R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d), when a child has been in a children services agency's temporary custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period ending on or after March 18, 1999, a trial court need not find that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time." In re Riley , Washington App. No. 03CA16, 2003-Ohio-4108 (Citations omitted).

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) permits permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence shows that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and the child has spent at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period in an agency's temporary custody.

In Matter of A.P., 08ap-186 (2-3-2009) · filed 2009-02-03(B)(1)(d)

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. ... Here, it is undisputed the children had been in the temporary custody of FCCS for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period as is required in R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d). Thus, the issue before the trial court was whether permanent placement was in the children's best interest.

Sections 2151.414(B)(1)(d) and (D)(3) make a child's twelve or more months in agency custody during a consecutive twenty-two-month period an independently sufficient basis for granting permanent custody.

In Re H.F., 90299 (4-16-2009) · filed 2009-04-16(B)(1)(d), (D)(3)

Given that both H.F. and R.F. were in CCDCFS's custody for the "twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month" threshold, the trial court could have found that this reason alone was sufficient to terminate S.F.'s parental rights. Further, since findings under R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d) and R.C. 2151.414 (D)(3) are alternative to other findings in the statute, each acts as an independently sufficient basis upon which to grant a motion for permanent custody filed by a children's services agency.

A finding that a child has been in an agency's custody for 12 of 22 consecutive months satisfies the second prong of the permanent-custody test, so the juvenile court need not also decide whether the child could or should be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

In Matter of T.J., Ca2008-10-019 (4-20-2009) · filed 2009-04-20(B)(1)(d)

Once a juvenile court determines that a child has been in the custody of the agency for 12 of 22 consecutive months in accordance with R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d) (the "`12 of 22' finding"), the court may move on to the best interest analysis. ... Only one of these four findings must be met in order to fulfill the second prong of the permanent custody test. ... As a result, once the "`12 of 22' finding" is made, it is unnecessary for a juvenile court to determine whether the children could or should be placed with the parents within a reasonable period of time.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) allows a permanent-custody award when the child has been in agency temporary custody for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, without requiring a finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

In Re S.G., 92392 (4-30-2009) · filed 2009-04-30(B)(1)(d)

For a trial court to grant permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1), however, the court must find that, in addition to permanent custody being in the best interests of the child, only one of the factors set forth in sections (a) through (d) apply. As already discussed, section (d) applied. Section (a) did not apply because it requires that the child had " not been in the temporary custody *** for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period[,]" a circumstance that did not exist here.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) permits an agency to obtain permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence establishes that permanent custody serves the child's best interests and the child has been in agency temporary custody for at least twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period.

In re A.R. · filed 2009-07-20(B)(1)(d)

If the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the best interests of the children and the children have been in the temporary custody of the agency for twelve or more months of a consecutive 22-month period, the court may grant the agency’s motion. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d).

Subsection (B)(1)(d) satisfies the first prong for permanent custody when a child has been in agency temporary custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, and clear-and-convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child’s best interest then supports granting permanent custody.

In re D.M. · filed 2009-08-14(B)(1)(d)

R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) provides that the first prong of analysis in determining permanent custody is satisfied where the child has been in temporary custody of the children services agency “for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period.” Here, undisputed testimony was heard that from May 2007 until March 2009, the date of the hearing, the children were continuously in the custody of CPSU. Accordingly, as CPSU also presented testimony that granting permanent custody to CPSU was in the best interests of the children, it satisfied its burden under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) by clear and convincing evidence. Thus, we find that the trial court did not err in granting permanent custody of the children to CPSU.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) permits permanent custody based on the child's best interest when the child has been in agency temporary custody for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period, without a finding that parental placement cannot be made within a reasonable time.

In re B.B. · filed 2011-06-03(B)(1)(d)

The juvenile court expressly found (a finding that is supported by the record) that the children in this case have been in Children Services’ temporary custody for more than 12 months of the prior 22-month period. Therefore the circumstance of R.C. 2151.414(B) that applies here is, the fourth, (B)(1)(d). That section provides for permanent custody to be determined in the child’s best interest if the child has been in the temporary custody of a public children services agency for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period, without the necessity of a finding that parental placement cannot be accomplished in a “reasonable time.”

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) satisfies one prerequisite for permanent custody when the child has been in an agency's temporary custody for at least 12 months of the preceding 22-month period.

In re W.W. · filed 2011-09-28(B)(1)(d)

R.C. 2151.414(B) establishes the test for the juvenile court to apply in ruling on a motion for permanent custody. ... A juvenile court may grant permanent custody of a child to an agency in response to an agency’s R.C. 2151.413(A) motion if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that (1) permanent custody is in the best interest of the child and (2) one of four conditions set forth in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)-(d) applies. ... Thus, the record clearly and convincingly demonstrates that when HCJFS moved for permanent custody in June 2010, W.W. had been in the temporary custody of the Agency for the requisite 12 months of the preceding 22-month period, the condition set forth in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d).

A child’s presence in an agency’s temporary custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period is independently sufficient to provide grounds for permanent custody.

In re E.J. · filed 2011-11-07(B)(1)(d)

At the outset, we note that the parties do not dispute the finding of the trial court that the children have been in the Agency’s temporary custody in excess of the required twelve or more months in a consecutive twenty-two-month period. See R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d). This finding alone provides the trial court with the appropriate grounds to grant the Agency’s motion for permanent custody.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) authorizes permanent custody on clear and convincing evidence of the child’s best interest and agency custody for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, and the subsection (D)(1) factors supported permanent custody here.

In re H.M. · filed 2011-12-09(B)(1)(d), (D)(1)

The trial court may grant permanent custody of a child to the agency if the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the child's best interest to grant permanent custody to the agency and that the child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children’s services agencies for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d). Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established. ... The applicable statutory best interest factors support the trial court’s decision. ... Based on these factors, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in granting permanent custody of H.M. to appellee.

Under division (B)(1)(d), once a child has spent twelve or more months in agency custody during a consecutive twenty-two-month period, the court proceeds directly to the child's best-interest analysis.

In re A.M. · filed 2011-12-12(B)(1)(d)

The procedural history of this matter clearly reveals that at the time of the filing of the present permanent custody on May 25, 2011, A.M. had been in agency custody for more than twelve months within a twenty-two month period. Under these circumstances, even though the trial court thoroughly reviewed the evidence pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) and (b), and both sides have cogently argued accordingly in the briefs, we are compelled, based on R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), to directly proceed to an analysis of the best interest issue.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d)'s twelve-of-twenty-two-month custody finding, together with a best-interest finding, is sufficient to support an award of permanent custody.

In re L.G. · filed 2012-03-12(B)(1)(d)

In this case, the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that L.G. has been in the temporary custody of a public children services agency for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d). Mother does not challenge the trial court’s finding. This finding alone, in conjunction with a best-interest finding, is sufficient to support the grant of permanent custody.

When a child has been in an agency’s temporary custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, that circumstance alone satisfies the threshold factor for permanent custody, without separate proof of abandonment or inability to place the child with a parent; the remaining inquiry is the child’s best interests.

In re R.S. · filed 2012-04-30(B)(1)(d)

We further observe that the statute requires the trial court to find the existence of only one of the R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) factors. ... If the court finds that R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) applies, then it need not also find that (1) the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, (2) the child is abandoned, or (3) the child is orphaned. Consequently, when considering a R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) permanent custody motion, the only other consideration becomes the child’s best interests. ... Because the trial court determined that R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) applied, we need not consider appellant’s assertion that clear and convincing evidence does not support its R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(b) abandonment finding. The statute requires a trial court to find the existence of only one of the R.C. 2151.414(B) factors. Thus, any error that may exist with respect to its abandonment finding would not constitute reversible error.

When a child has been in an agency’s temporary custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, the court need not also find that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

In re A.S. · filed 2012-07-16(B)(1)(d)

Pursuant to 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 twenty-two month period, a trial court need not find that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time. See R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d). Therefore, the court was not required to go into a “reasonable time” analysis as alleged in Jennifer’s appeal as R.C. 2951.414(B)(1)(d) was satisfied.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d)'s twelve-month period does not require twelve full calendar months, and a child is deemed to enter temporary custody on the earlier of adjudication or sixty days after removal from home.

In re T.B. · filed 2013-01-10(B)(1)(d)

One of the alternative criteria under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) is whether “[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 * * *.” ... “For the purposes of division (B)(1) of this section, a child shall be considered to have entered the temporary custody of an agency on the earlier of the date the child is adjudicated pursuant to section 2151.28 of the Revised Code or the date that is sixty days after the removal of the child from home.” ... We therefore find proper compliance with the “twelve of twenty-two rule,” and we find no merit in appellant’s assertion that only “full” months count toward the total.

When the 12-of-22-month condition in § 2151.414(B)(1)(d) is met, permanent custody requires only the additional finding that permanent custody is in the child's best interest under § 2151.414(D).

In re C.B. · filed 2011-10-27(B)(1)(d), (D)

Here, the record supports the trial court’s determination that the child had been in the temporary custody of CCDCFS for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period. ... Having satisfied R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), the only other finding the court was required to make was that an award of permanent custody is in the best interest of the child. ... Upon our review, we find that a multitude of factors under R.C. 2151.414(D) were established by clear and convincing evidence.

The twelve-month period in the twelve-of-twenty-two rule does not require twelve full calendar months.

In re T.B. · filed 2013-03-15(B)(1)(d)

Although the case plan in the matter sub judice was approved on November 20, 2008, the trial court relied on the most recent removal date of November 10, 2009 as the starting point for purposes of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d). Sixty days from that date was January 9, 2010. The agency thus waited more than twelve months, specifically until January 13, 2011, to file its motion for permanent custody. During at least that twelve-month period, the children were in agency custody. We therefore find proper compliance with the “twelve of twenty-two rule,” and we find no merit in appellant’s assertion that only “full” months count toward the total.

When a child has been in an agency’s temporary custody for at least twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, the court need not also determine that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

In re J.B. · filed 2013-04-26(B)(1)(d)

Because one of the four R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) factors existed for both children, the factor set forth in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) — the possibility of placement with either parent within a reasonable time — is not determinative in this case. ... “The court does not need to determine that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time [when] the child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies for more than 12 of the last 22 months.”

A finding that a child has been in an agency's temporary custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period independently satisfies the first prong of the permanent-custody analysis.

In re T.G. · filed 2013-06-24(B)(1)(d)

Father does not appeal the trial court’s finding the child had been in the temporary custody of SCDJFS for twelve of a consecutive twenty-two month period pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d). This finding is sufficient on its own to establish the first prong of the permanent custody analysis and to sustain the decision of the trial court.

Under § 2151.414(B)(1)(d), a twelve-of-twenty-two-month custody finding, together with a best-interest finding, is sufficient to support an award of permanent custody.

In re H.M. · filed 2013-02-27(B)(1)(d)

{¶40} In this case, the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that the children had been in the temporary custody of a public children services agency for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d). Appellant does not challenge the trial court’s finding. This finding alone, in conjunction with a best-interest finding, is sufficient to support the grant of permanent custody. In re Calhoun, 5th Dist. No. 2008CA00118, 2008-Ohio-5458, ¶ 45.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d)'s twelve-of-twenty-two period is not tolled merely because the mother was incarcerated at the child's birth where she voluntarily relinquished custody and no suitable family placement existed.

In re M.R. · filed 2013-04-01(B)(1)(d)

Thus as applied to this case, David’s argument would essentially permit Kim to use her own criminal conduct and her own election to voluntarily relinquish custody of M.R. to the Agency to extend the time before the presumption of parental unfitness takes effect, thereby extending the time for a parent to demonstrate parental fitness and also forcing M.R. to linger in custodial limbo for an unspecified amount of time quite possibly for a longer period of time than in those instances where a parent is not incarcerated; none of which, in our view, is consistent with the purposes of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d).

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) permits permanent custody based on a child's having been in agency custody for twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period without a separate finding that the child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

In re A.S. · filed 2013-09-11(B)(1)(d)

R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) cited above specifically applies to A.S. and V.S. as they had been in appellee's custody for some twelve months at the time of the filing of their motion for permanent custody. Therefore, it is not necessary to find that these children cannot reasonably be placed with appellant another year forward.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) permits an award of permanent custody based solely on proof that the child was in an agency's temporary custody for at least twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period.

In re S.H. · filed 2013-10-07(B)(1)(d)

This court has adopted the position that proof of temporary custody with an agency for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period alone is sufficient to award permanent custody. ... The permanent custody motion was filed almost twenty-one months later on December 6, 2012. Therefore, R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) has been met.

The twelve-of-twenty-two-month ground is measured when the agency files its permanent-custody motion and does not apply if the motion is filed before the child has spent twelve months in temporary custody, even if twelve months have elapsed by the hearing.

In re S.B. · filed 2013-12-16(B)(1)(d)

Here, the children are not alleged to be orphaned or abandoned. Although they had been in temporary custody for thirteen of twenty-two months on the date the permanent custody motion was heard, the relevant date triggering this provision is the date the motion was filed by the agency. See In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163, 2004-Ohio-6411, 818 N.E.2d 1176 at ¶22-26 (the court cannot use the "12 of 22" provision if the agency files the motion for permanent custody prior to the child actually being in the temporary custody for 12 months). Here, HCJFS's motion was filed prior to the expiration of twelve months. Thus, the 12 of 22 provision is inapplicable, and R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) is the only remaining alternative factor to pursue permanent custody in this case.

When the 12-of-22 condition in subsection (B)(1)(d) is satisfied, the court need not determine whether the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time and need only additionally consider the child's best interests.

In re J.V-M.P. · filed 2014-02-10(B)(1)(d)

It is well-established that under the plain language of R.C. § 2151.414(B)(1)(d), when a child has been in a children services agency’s temporary custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, a trial court need not find that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time. E.g., In re A.M.1, 4th Dist. Athens Nos. 10CA21 through 10CA31, 2010-Ohio-5837, ¶ 31; In re T.F., 4th Dist. Pickaway No. 07CA34, 2008–Ohio–1238, ¶ 23; In re Williams, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 02AP–924, 2002–Ohio–7205; In re Dyal, 4th Dist. Hocking No. 01CA11, 2001 WL 925379 (Aug. 9, 2001). Consequently, when considering a R.C. § 2151.414(B)(1)(d) permanent custody motion, the only other consideration becomes the child’s best interests. A trial court need not conduct a R.C. § 2151.414(B)(1)(a) analysis of whether the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time. In re Berkley, 4th Dist. Pickaway Nos. 04CA12, 04CA13, 04CA14, 2004–Ohio–4797, ¶ 61.

When a child has remained in agency custody for twelve of the preceding twenty-two months, § 2151.414(B)(1)(d) creates a rebuttable, justifiable presumption that the parent is unfit.

In re M.G. · filed 2014-03-17(B)(1)(d)

In effect, if a parent has failed to achieve reunification within 12 months of a 22 month period, a justifiable presumption of parental unfitness arises. See In re A.J. and S.M. at ¶43. In its entry, the trial court found that appellant had not rebutted the presumption of parental unfitness.

Once the twelve-of-twenty-two-month ground in § 2151.414(B)(1)(d) is established, the court need not separately determine under subsection (B)(1)(a) whether the child can or should be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

In re I.G. · filed 2014-03-24(B)(1)(d)

Pursuant to 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 twenty-two month period, a trial court need not find that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time. Compare R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) with R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a). Thus, the court was not required to go into a separate “reasonable time” analysis under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a).

Once a child has been in agency custody for at least 12 of the previous 22 months under subsection (B)(1)(d), the only remaining issue is whether permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In re G.G. · filed 2013-09-13(B)(1)(d)

Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), once it is clear that the child has been in the care of the agency for at least 12 of the previous 22 months, the only matter to be determined by the trial court is the best interest of the child.

The 12-of-22-month period is intended to give parents time to demonstrate their fitness through implementation of a valid case plan, so requirements never formally added to that plan cannot be used against a parent in the permanent-custody analysis.

In re S.D-M. · filed 2014-04-09(B)(1)(d)

The creation and substance of a case plan is critical because it is the primary reunification tool of children services agencies as contemplated by Chapter 2151. It is no less important where, as here, a trial court relies on R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), the “12 of 22” factor, in support of permanent custody. In such cases, the Ohio Supreme Court has emphasized that the statute anticipates that parents will have those 12 months “to demonstrate their ability and fitness to care for their child * * *.” ... This period of time is designed to allow for the implementation of the case plan and guide the parents towards reunification.

The twelve-of-twenty-two-month calculation under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) turns on the child's temporary-custody status, making the parent's own foster placement irrelevant.

In re T.H. · filed 2014-07-03(B)(1)(d)

Moreover, even if appellant and T.H. were initially placed together at the time of removal, it would not change the fact that T.H. has been in the temporary custody of a public services agency for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period. Appellant’s placement is irrelevant under this prong of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d). Rather, this issue would be better raised in addressing the factors considered under R.C. 2151.414(E). Accordingly, clear and convincing evidence exists to support the trial court’s decision finding the second prong of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) was satisfied.

When a child has been in agency temporary custody for at least twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, parental rights may be terminated upon clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In re M.W. · filed 2014-07-11(B)(1)(d)

When a child has been in temporary custody of a children services agency for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, a trial court is authorized to terminate parental rights and to grant permanent custody to the agency if it finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that permanent custody is in a child’s best interest.

When adjudication occurs less than 60 days after removal, the adjudication date is used to calculate the 12-of-22-month custody period.

In re S.F. · filed 2014-04-28(B)(1)(d)

This is less than 60 days after the removal from the home, so is the date to be used when calculating the twelve out of twenty-two months.

Terminating parental rights under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) is plain error when the parent was excluded from the case plan and received no reunification services.

In re S.R. · filed 2014-06-25(B)(1)(d)

Because Father was not included on the case plan and was afforded no services whatsoever in attempting to be reunified with S.R., the trial court committed plain error in terminating his parental rights under the “12 of 22” provision of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d).

Once the 12-of-22-month custody requirement is met, the court decides best interest and need not also decide whether the children could or should be returned to their parents within a reasonable time.

In re S.B. · filed 2014-04-07(B)(1)(d)

Thus, the trial court then was required to consider whether the granting of the motion was in the best interest of the children, not whether the children could or should be returned to the parents within a reasonable time.

Under the circumstances of a reversed permanent-custody order, time the children remained with foster families during the prior appeal counted toward the statute's 12-of-22-month legal-limbo period even though the order labeled the custody permanent rather than temporary.

In re R.L. · filed 2014-09-12(B)(1)(d)

Whether in GCCS’s temporary or permanent custody, the children were indisputably in the type of legal limbo contemplated by R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) for twelve or more months of a consecutive 22-month period preceding the trial court’s judgment.

Once the twelve-of-twenty-two-month condition in Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) is established, the remaining permanent-custody inquiry is whether the award is in the child's best interest.

In re C.F. · filed 2014-12-22(B)(1)(d)

The trial court first found that C.F. had been in the temporary custody for more than twelve months out of the twenty-two consecutive months prior to the filing of the complaint for permanent custody. This is the factor set forth in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d). Thus, the only consideration for the trial court in this case was whether the granting of the Agency’s motion was in the best interest of C.F.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) does not require a full twenty-two months to elapse before an agency may seek permanent custody based on twelve months of temporary custody.

In re K.G. · filed 2015-01-16(B)(1)(d)

Under appellants’ logic, a child services agency could never file for permanent custody of a child who is not at least 22 months old, no matter if the child had been in temporary custody for 12 or more months, because the 22-month portion of the rule could not be met. We decline to follow that logic.

When permanent custody is granted on the 12-of-22-month ground, the court need not separately find that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time because that finding is implicit in the statutory period.

In re L.D. · filed 2015-08-07(B)(1)(d)

“When granting permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), the trial court need not find that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time since such a finding is implicit in the time frame provided in the statute.”

The 12-month custody period must exist when the agency files its permanent-custody motion, so time between filing and the hearing does not count toward that period.

In re D.C. · filed 2015-08-10(B)(1)(d)

At the time a public children services agency moves for permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), the child must have been in the agency's temporary custody for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period. A motion for permanent custody must allege grounds that exist at the time the motion is filed. In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163, 2004-Ohio-6411, ¶ 24, 26. “In other words, the time that passes between the filing of a motion for permanent custody and the permanent custody hearing does not count toward the 12-month period set forth in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d).”

For the twelve-of-twenty-two-month calculation, a child enters agency custody on the earlier of the adjudication date or sixty days after removal.

In re L.E. · filed 2015-09-10(B)(1)(d)

April 16, 2013, sixty days following the child’s removal, is earlier than January 15, 2014, the date the court adjudicated the child abused/dependent. Thus, for purposes of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), the child entered appellee’s temporary custody on April 16, 2013.

A supported finding that a child has been in agency custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period independently satisfies the first prong for permanent custody.

In re K.B. · filed 2015-09-11(B)(1)(d)

In this case, the trial court found K.B. has been in the temporary custody of the Agency for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period. As we have previously noted, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), this finding alone is sufficient to affirm the grant of permanent custody to the Agency.

The reasonable-time and twelve-of-twenty-two-month grounds are independently sufficient, and an undisputed twelve-of-twenty-two-month finding permits the court to proceed directly to best interest.

In re D.C. · filed 2015-11-18(B)(1)(d)

It is well-established that (B)(1)(a) and (B)(1)(d) are independently sufficient to use as a basis to grant an agency's motion for permanent custody. See In re M.R., 3d Dist. Defiance No. 4–12–18, 2013–Ohio–1302, ¶ 80. In this instance, it is undisputed that at the time of the filing of the permanent custody motion, D.C. had been in agency custody for more than twelve months within a twenty-two month period. Under these circumstances, we are compelled, based on R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), to directly proceed to an analysis of the best interest issue.

When permanent custody rests on the twelve-of-twenty-two-month ground, the court need not separately find that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent because that finding is implicit in the statutory time frame.

In re D.H. · filed 2016-01-19(B)(1)(d)

“When granting permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), the trial court need not find that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time since such a finding is implicit in the time frame provided in the statute.”

Once the child has been in agency care for at least twelve of the previous twenty-two months, the trial court need determine only the child's best interest, making a reasonable-time placement finding unnecessary.

In re F.A.T. · filed 2016-02-01(B)(1)(d)

“[O]nce it is clear that the child has been in the care of the agency for at least 12 of the previous 22 months, the only matter to be determined by the trial court is the best interest of the child.”

Under Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d), the twelve-of-twenty-two-month finding makes a separate cannot-or-should-not-be-placed finding unnecessary.

In re J.K. · filed 2016-03-14(B)(1)(d)

When granting permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), the trial court need not find that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time since such a finding is implicit in the time frame provided in the statute.

An uncontested 12-of-22-month finding, together with a best-interest finding, is independently sufficient to support permanent custody.

In re Z.B.C. · filed 2016-04-18(B)(1)(d)

This finding alone, in conjunction with a best-interest finding, is sufficient to support the grant of permanent custody.

Under the twelve-of-twenty-two-month provision, an agency may move for permanent custody once the child has been in its continuous custody for at least twelve months; it need not wait for a full twenty-two months to elapse.

In re J.R. · filed 2016-04-25(B)(1)(d)

This Court has previously rejected this argument and held, “[w]e find the agency was not required to wait until twenty-two months had passed before filing its motion for permanent custody.” ... Thus, an agency can file for permanent ... custody any time after the child has been in the agency’s continuous custody for at least twelve months, but may not file its motion until after at least twelve months have passed.

When the twelve-of-twenty-two-month ground is undisputed, the permanent-custody analysis focuses on best interest without addressing the alternative threshold grounds.

In re J.H. · filed 2016-08-05(B)(1)(d)

Thus, we will focus on the best interest analysis, and we need not discuss the second part of the test set forth in R.C. 2151.414.

When a child has been in agency custody for more than twelve of twenty-two consecutive months, the court need consider only best interest and need not decide whether reunification is possible within a reasonable time.

In re J.P. · filed 2016-08-12(B)(1)(d)

Furthermore, as the State points out, the trial court was not required to consider whether reunification could take place within a reasonable time, since J.P. had been in the agency’s custody for more than 12 of 22 consecutive months. The court was only required to consider whether permanent custody was in J.P.’s best interests.

Time during which a parent was not included in a case plan may count toward § 2151.414(B)(1)(d)'s twelve-of-twenty-two-month period when the agency satisfied its obligation to make reasonable reunification efforts.

In re C.C · filed 2016-09-26(B)(1)(d)

Cooper’s argument is that time during which he was not included in the case plan should not be included in the “12 of 22” calculation. ... We reject Cooper’s reliance on In re S.R. for two reasons. First, as we discussed in detail above, the case is distinguishable from these cases. Second, we concluded above that the Agency satisfied its obligation to make reasonable reunification efforts. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court had sufficient evidence before it to conclude by clear and convincing evidence that the children were in the Agency’s temporary custody for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period.

Once a child has been in agency custody for twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) requires only a best-interest determination and does not require a finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with a parent.

In re R.T. · filed 2016-12-29(B)(1)(d)

The court was not required to consider whether R.T. could be placed with his father within a reasonable time, or whether he should be placed with his father because those considerations are only applicable to division (B)(1)(a) of R.C. 2151.414. ... Under the current version, once the court finds that a child has been in the temporary custody of CCDCFS for 12 months out of a consecutive 22-month period, the court need only consider whether an award of permanent custody is in the best interest of the child before ruling on the motion.

When the twelve-of-twenty-two-month condition in section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) is met and permanent custody is in the child's best interest, the court need not also find under subsection (B)(1)(a) that the child cannot or should not be returned to a parent within a reasonable time.

In re J.A. · filed 2017-03-20(B)(1)(d)

This Court has held previously that “when a trial court finds that R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) [twelve of twenty-two] has been met and makes a best interest determination, it is not required to also determine that the children could not or should not be returned to any of the parents within a reasonable time under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a).” In re J.P., 3d Dist. Hancock Nos. 5-06-52, 5-06-53, 2007-Ohio-1903, ¶ 93. Here, the “twelve of twenty-two” requirement was clearly met, thus the trial court did not even have to make the superfluous finding that the children could not or should not be placed with their parents within a reasonable time.

Satisfying Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d)'s twelve-of-twenty-two-month requirement is not alone enough for permanent custody; the court must also find permanent custody serves the child's best interest under Section 2151.414(D)(1).

In re V.N. · filed 2017-05-01(B)(1)(d)

However, Father's argument is unsupported by the law. As explained above, "the 12 of 22 consecutive months' requirement is only a part of the statutory requisite necessary for the granting of a motion for permanent custody." In re AsF(F), 2016-Ohio-7836, ¶ 15. To grant permanent custody, the "juvenile court must also find that permanent custody serves the child's best interest based upon the non-exclusive enumerated factors of R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)." Id.

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

In re G.P. · filed 2017-05-19(B)(1)(d)

There was no dispute in this case that G.P. had been in the custody of the agency for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period as described in R.C. 2151.413(D)(1). As a result, the trial court was entitled to award FCSCC permanent custody if it found “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 * * *.” R.C. 2151.414(B)(1). The court did not have to consider “ ‘whether the child can be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child's parents, as would be required under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a).’ ” (Citation omitted.) In re S.H., 2d Dist. Montgomery Nos. 24619, 24644, 2011-Ohio-4721, ¶ 6.

When the twelve-of-twenty-two-month ground is established, the court need not also find that the child cannot be reunified with the parent within a reasonable time.

In re J.D. · filed 2017-06-12(B)(1)(d)

However, because the court found that the children had been in the agency's temporary custody for more than 12 months in a consecutive 22-month period, it was unnecessary to find that the children could not be reunified with Mother in a reasonable time.

Because the first-prong conditions are alternatives, an undisputed 12-of-22-month finding makes a challenge to an additional cannot-or-should-not-be-placed finding moot.

In re A.N. · filed 2017-07-24(B)(1)(d)

Here, Mother concedes that the child was in the temporary custody of JFS for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d). She moreover concedes that this finding satisfies the first prong of the permanent custody test and that she “limits her challenge to the trial court’s finding that permanent custody was in the best interest of A.N.” Accordingly, her challenge to the juvenile court’s alternative first-prong finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with a parent is moot.

Only one subsection (B) condition is required, and more than 12 months in agency custody during a consecutive 22-month period completes the first step of the permanent-custody analysis.

In re M.S. · filed 2017-07-27(B)(1)(d)

Though only one factor is required, the trial court adopted the GAL’s recommendation, finding both that the children could not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time (R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)), and that the children have been in C.C.D.C.F.S. custody for 12 of 22 consecutive months (R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d)). ... Therefore, there is no dispute that the children have been in C.C.D.C.F.S. custody for three years, which completes step one of the analysis for R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d).

Once the twelve-of-twenty-two-month finding is made, the court need not also determine under subsection (B)(1)(a) whether the child can be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

In re G.R. · filed 2017-11-30(B)(1)(d)

As the juvenile court made the 12 of 22 finding, it did not have to consider ... whether the child could be placed with either parent within a reasonable time under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a).

A supported finding that children spent at least 12 months in agency custody during a consecutive 22-month period makes any asserted error in an alternative abandonment finding moot.

In re S.A. · filed 2017-12-04(B)(1)(d)

Considering the juvenile court found all seven children were adjudicated dependent and C.L. abused, and that the children had been in the temporary custody of BCDJFS for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period, we find Mother's abandonment argument moot. ... The juvenile court made the 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period finding, which was supported by clear and convincing evidence, thereby rendering any alleged error in finding abandonment moot.

Subsection (B)(1)(d) cannot support permanent custody until 22 consecutive months of agency involvement have elapsed and the agency held temporary custody for at least 12 months during that period.

In re K.L. · filed 2017-12-13(B)(1)(d)

But, if the basis for the motion is R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), the statute clearly requires the agency must have had temporary custody of the child for “12 months or more of a consecutive twenty-two-month period.” ... While the C.W. court holding recognized that the statute guarantees parents at least “12 months to work toward reunification” before the agency can file for permanent custody, that holding did not eliminate the need for 22- ... consecutive months of agency involvement to have transpired.

When clear and convincing evidence establishes the 12-of-22-month condition, a court need not decide a parent’s challenge to an alternative finding that the child cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable time.

In re J.M.E. · filed 2018-01-08(B)(1)(d)

As set forth above, only one of the five factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)-(e) must be met to support a grant of permanent custody. See In re A.S. at ¶ 17. As Mother does not dispute that clear and convincing evidence was presented demonstrating that Jacob has been in WCCS's custody for the requisite period of time to satisfy the statutory requirements of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), we need not address Mother's argument regarding the reasonable time standard.

When the child has been in agency custody for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, subsection (B)(1)(d), rather than subsection (B)(1)(a), supplies the applicable first-prong ground.

In re J.F. · filed 2018-01-11(B)(1)(a), (B)(1)(d)

In this case, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that J.F. was placed in the agency's custody on March 17, 2015 and, therefore, has been in the temporary custody of the agency for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period. Under these circumstances, we find the court improperly applied R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) to J.F.'s case. Nevertheless, we find no error because the court's decision reflects that the court considered R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) in the alternative while also making its finding under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d).

An agency need prove only one subsection (B)(1) ground, so an established 12-of-22-month ground does not require proof that the children also could not be placed with the parent within a reasonable time.

In re M.A. · filed 2018-01-22(B)(1)(d)

The Agency need only prove one of the grounds, not all of them. Accordingly, as the 12 of 22 ground had been met, the Agency next had to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody was in the best interest of the children.

An agency may not file a second permanent-custody motion while its first remains pending merely to add a 12-of-22-month ground that arose through the passage of time after the first filing.

In re J.B. · filed 2018-01-24(B)(1)(d)

This case presents an issue of first impression for this Court: whether a children services agency, that has filed a motion for permanent custody that has not been disposed, may file a subsequent motion for permanent custody prior to the commencement of the permanent custody hearing, to allege the additional first-prong ground that the child has now been in the temporary custody of the agency for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period, merely because of the passage of time. For the reasons that follow, this Court holds that, in these circumstances, the agency lacks authority to file a subsequent motion for permanent custody when its prior motion for permanent custody remains pending and has not yet been disposed.

When the twelve-of-twenty-two-month ground is established, the court need not decide whether the child can be returned to the parent within a reasonable time and may award permanent custody based on best interest.

In re R.P. · filed 2018-03-09(B)(1)(d)

Turning to mother’s claim that she should have been given additional time to complete services, because the trial court found that R.P. had been in the temporary custody of LCCS for more than 12 of the last 22 months under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), it was not required to consider whether the child could be returned to mother within a reasonable time.

Subsection (B)(1)(d) requires twelve months of agency custody before a permanent-custody motion, not that twenty-two consecutive months of agency involvement have elapsed.

In re H.M. · filed 2018-03-16(B)(1)(d)

Even when it is read in conjunction with R.C. 2151.413(D), R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) does not require twenty-two consecutive months of agency involvement to have transpired before GCCS can file its motion for permanent custody, only twelve months.

Once the 12-of-22-month condition 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 K.W. · filed 2018-04-30(B)(1)(d)

In the case sub judice, the trial court determined that R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) applies. The father does not dispute that the child has been in appellee's temporary custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period within the meaning of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d). If the court finds that R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) applies, then it need not also find that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

Although subsection (B)(1)(a) applies only when the other listed circumstances do not, a court may cite subsection (B)(1)(a) and the 12-of-22-month ground as alternative bases without error.

In re L.W. · filed 2018-05-31(B)(1)(a), (B)(1)(d)

This court has previously acknowledged that R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) only applies when R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(b) through (d) do not apply. In re H.D., 10th Dist. No. 13AP-707, 2014-Ohio-228, ¶ 13. Despite this, however, a trial court does not err by applying both R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) and (d) as alternative bases for a grant of permanent custody.

When subsection (B)(1)(d)'s twelve-of-twenty-two-month condition is met, the court need not additionally find that the children cannot or should not be placed with either parent.

State v. Hoskins · filed 2018-08-17(B)(1)(d)

It is undisputed that the condition set forth in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) was met as the children had been in the temporary custody of HCJFS for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period. While the court was not required to make the further finding that the children could not or should not be placed with either parent, it nonetheless did so.

Subsection (B)(1)(d) permits permanent custody when the child has spent twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period in agency custody and clear and convincing evidence shows the award is in the child's best interest.

In re M.B. · filed 2018-08-24(B)(1)(d)

Under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), a juvenile court may grant permanent custody to an agency when the child has been in the temporary custody of the agency for 12 months out of a consecutive 22-month period and the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that an award of permanent custody to the agency is in the child’s best interest.

When Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d)'s twelve-of-twenty-two-month ground applies, the court may proceed directly to best interest without deciding reasonable-time placement under subsection (B)(1)(a).

In re D.M. · filed 2018-11-26(B)(1)(d)

Under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), which is applicable in the instant matter, when a child has been in the temporary custody of a children services agency for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22–month period a trial court need not engage in the R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) analysis of whether the child can or should be placed with either parent within a reasonable time and may proceed directly to a best interests analysis. In re Williams, Franklin App. No. 02AP-924, 2002-Ohio-7205, at ¶ 46.

A supported Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) twelve-of-twenty-two-month finding makes it unnecessary to consider an alternative reasonable-time placement finding under Section 2151.414(E).

In re M.R. · filed 2018-12-17(B)(1)(d)

However, we need not consider this finding, as the juvenile court's finding the children were adjudicated dependent and had been in the temporary custody of BCDJFS for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period was supported by clear and convincing evidence. In re A.W., 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2014-03-005, 2014-Ohio-3188, ¶ 12.

When the child has spent the required time in agency custody, the agency need not establish that the child cannot or should not be placed with a parent; the remaining consideration is best interest.

In re M.W. · filed 2019-01-18(B)(1)(d)

Further, “ ‘[w]here children have been in agency custody for the required time, the agency does not have to establish that the child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with a parent. The only consideration is the child’s best interests.’

Subsection (B)(1)(d)'s twelve-of-twenty-two-month ground independently satisfies the non-best-interest prong and permits the court to proceed directly to best interest.

In re A.S. · filed 2019-02-01(B)(1)(d)

Under these circumstances, we are compelled, based on R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), to directly proceed to an analysis of the best interest issue.

When subsection (B)(1)(d) applies, the agency need prove only by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In re N.C. & A.C. · filed 2019-02-15(B)(1)(d)

Where R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) applies, the agency “is only required to prove by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interests of the child to grant permanent custody to the” agency.

When Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) applies, the agency need not also prove that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

In re L.W. · filed 2019-04-11(B)(1)(d)

Where R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) applies, the agency need not also find that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.