Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2151.414

When a child meets the 12-of-22-month requirement, subsection (B)(1)(d) satisfies the threshold prong without proof that the child cannot or should not be returned within a reasonable time.

In re BR · filed 2019-05-31(B)(1)(d)

"[A]s long as a child meets the '12 of 22' requirement, an agency is no longer required to prove that a child cannot be returned to the parents within a reasonable time or should not be returned to the parents."

Nineteen months of agency temporary custody satisfies subsection (B)(1)(d)'s 12-of-22-month threshold.

In re C.B. · filed 2020-03-05(B)(1)(d)

C.B. was placed in the temporary custody of the Agency on August 22, 2017, nineteen months before the hearing took place. We find the trial court's judgment on this point is supported by competent, credible evidence.

When subsection (B)(1)(d)'s 12-of-22-month threshold is met, the court need not also find that the child cannot or should not be placed with a parent.

In re B.D. · filed 2020-03-11(B)(1)(d)

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

Subsection (B)(1)(d)'s 12-of-22-month requirement does not require the agency to have been involved for the entire consecutive 22-month period.

In re S.S. · filed 2020-04-08(B)(1)(d)

This Court explicitly rejected their legal interpretation of the language of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) in In re J.C., 9th Dist. Summit No. 28865, 2018-Ohio-2555, ¶ 10-13 and, more recently, in In re K.H., 9th Dist. Summit No. 29555, 2020-Ohio-776, ¶ 6- 8.

Almost 22 months of agency temporary custody within a consecutive 22-month period satisfies subsection (B)(1)(d)'s threshold.

In re L.B. · filed 2020-07-27(B)(1)(d)

No one challenges that finding, which was supported by the record. The facts are not disputed that, at the time MCJFS moved for permanent custody, L.B. had been in its temporary custody for almost 22 months of a consecutive 22-month period.

A supported subsection (B)(1)(d) 12-of-22-month finding alone satisfies the threshold prong regardless of any other factor and requires no subsection (E) findings.

In re J.C-A. · filed 2020-11-19(B)(1)(d)

Therefore, when a trial court makes a finding under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), and the record supports that finding, that is sufficient to satisfy the first prong of the permanent custody statute regardless of any other factor.

Twelve or more months of agency temporary custody in a consecutive 22-month period is independently sufficient for permanent custody.

In re O.M. · filed 2021-04-14(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.

Time between the filing of a permanent-custody motion and the permanent-custody hearing does not count toward the 12-month custody period.

In re X.S. · filed 2021-05-24(B)(1)(d)

“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).”

A finding that the child spent 12 of 22 consecutive months in agency custody, together with a best-interest finding, is sufficient to support permanent custody.

In re M.W. · filed 2021-06-02(B)(1)(d)

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

A prolonged ex parte emergency-temporary-custody placement does not count as agency temporary custody for the twelve-of-twenty-two-month ground when Ohio law does not authorize treating it as temporary custody.

In re A.W. · filed 2021-06-23(B)(1)(d)

{¶28} The trial court’s implicit legal conclusion that a seven-month period of ex parte, emergency temporary custody constituted “temporary custody” to CSB for purposes of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) is not supported by Ohio law. Moreover, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the parents waived their rights to the procedural protections provided by R.C. Chapter 2151 and the Juvenile Rules. Consequently, the trial court erred by concluding that the “12 of 22” prong was satisfied in this case.

The 12-of-22-month ground is unavailable when the agency moves for permanent custody before 12 qualifying months, though reliance on it may be harmless if another first-prong ground is established.

In re R.D.W. · filed 2021-12-09(B)(1)(d)

Although the children’s custodial history was relevant to the court’s best interest considerations under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(c), we agree with Father’s assertion on appeal that the juvenile court erred to the extent it determined R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) was applicable. Nevertheless, for the reasons that follow, we find the court’s reliance on R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) to be harmless.

Once the 12-of-22-month ground is established, the court need not also make reasonable-time placement findings under subsection (E).

In re R.M. · filed 2021-12-09(B)(1)(d), (E)

Having determined that R.M. was in SCDJFS temporary custody for over twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, the trial court was not required to make findings as to a reasonable period of time under R.C. 2151.414(E).

The 12-of-22-month ground does not require a separate finding that the children cannot or should not be placed with the parent within a reasonable time.

In re K.R. · filed 2021-12-20(B)(1)(d)

This provision set forth in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) does not require a finding that the children cannot or should not be placed with the parent within a reasonable period of time.

A 12-of-22-month finding makes additional parental-placement findings under subsection (E) unnecessary.

In re D.K. · filed 2022-04-29(B)(1)(d), (E)

Having made this finding, the trial court was not required to make findings under R.C. 2151.414(E).

The 12-of-22-month ground permits permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence establishes the custody period and that permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In re J.B. · filed 2022-05-04(B)(1)(d)

R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) allows a court to grant permanent custody to a public children services agency if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that “[t]he child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies * * * for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period * * *” and that permanent custody is in the best interest of the child.

Once the 12-of-22-month ground is found, no further subsection (E) finding about placement within a reasonable time is required.

In re K.H.-T. · filed 2022-05-05(B)(1)(d), (E)

Having found that K.H.-T. had been in CCDCFS’s custody for “twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period” under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), the juvenile court was not required to make further findings to determine whether or not K.H.-T. cannot or should not be placed with Mother within a reasonable time under subsection (E) of the statute.

The pandemic tolling order did not suspend the consecutive 22-month custody calculation or the 90-day abandonment presumption.

In re S.C-N. · filed 2022-09-01(B)(1)(d)

Neither the consecutive 22-month period set forth in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) nor the 90 day abandonment presumption in R.C. 2151.011(C) is impacted by the tolling order.

A pending permanent-custody motion in an earlier case does not toll the 12-of-22-month calculation, and the subsection provides no tolling for any reason.

In re T.M. · filed 2022-09-14(B)(1)(d)

This Court’s consideration of our prior discussions of the issue, based on holdings and reasoning by the Ohio Supreme Court, lead us to conclude that a pending motion for permanent custody in a prior case does not toll the time when calculating whether a child has been in agency temporary custody for purposes of Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d). Moreover, the plain language of Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) does not provide for tolling of time for that or any other reason.

For the twelve-of-twenty-two-month calculation, the sixty-day alternative date is measured from the child’s removal from home.

In re A.F. · filed 2022-10-20(B)(1)(d), (B)(1)(e)

{¶39} In the case at bar, A.F. was removed from Mother’s home on October 21, 2020. T. at 74. Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(e) sixty days from October 21, 2020 is Monday, December 21, 2020.

The twenty-two-month period is a permanent-custody factor rather than a guaranteed period for working a case plan, while subsection (A)(2) generally requires a hearing within 120 days after the motion.

In re C.M. · filed 2022-12-27(A)(2), (B)

{¶32} Although Father does not cite a specific statute in his first assignment of error, we presume Father is referring to the twenty-two month period set forth in R.C. 2151.414(B). This time period is a factor the trial court may consider in determining whether to grant permanent custody, not a prescribed time in which a parent is permitted to work on his or her case plan.

An agency continues to hold temporary custody for section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) while the child is physically placed with another caregiver if the court has not granted that caregiver any legal custody status.

In re A.M. · filed 2023-02-28(B)(1)(d)

Here, ACCSB obtained temporary custody of the children when they were adjudicated dependent on August 28, 2018. ACCSB placed the children in Ms. Henery’s care between March and August 2019. However, the trial court did not grant any legal status to Ms. Henery with respect to the children’s custody. Therefore, for purposes of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), ACCSB maintained temporary custody of the children from adjudication through the filing of its motion for permanent custody on June 4, 2020.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(a) applies only when none of the other subsection (B)(1) circumstances applies, so a court need not make a reasonable-time placement finding when the child has already spent twelve of twenty-two months in agency custody.

In re S.W. · filed 2023-03-07(B)(1)(a)

As we have noted in previous cases, R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a), by its terms, is inapplicable when a child has been in a children services agency’s temporary custody for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period. ... Consequently, when a child has been in a children services agency’s temporary custody for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period, a trial court need not find that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

Once the twelve-of-twenty-two-month ground in Section 2151.414(B)(1) is satisfied, the court proceeds to the statutory best-interest factors.

In re C.T.L.V. · filed 2023-04-10(B)(1), (D)(1)

In this case, C.T.L.V. has been in the temporary custody of BCDJFS for more than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period at the time BCDJFS filed its motion for permanent custody. This satisfies the second part of the test. Therefore, we now must consider the first part of the test which involves the best interest factors. Id.

A finding that a child has spent twelve of twenty-two consecutive months in agency custody, together with a best-interest finding, is sufficient to award permanent custody.

In re S.P. · filed 2023-04-11(B)(1)

A finding that a child has been in the temporary custody of a public children-services agency for twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period alone, in conjunction with a best interest finding, is sufficient to support the grant of permanent custody.

When a child has spent twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period in agency custody, section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) does not require a separate finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent.

In re I.G. · filed 2023-05-08(B)(1)(d)

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

Time during which an agency has temporary custody counts toward section 2151.414(B)(1)(d)'s twelve-of-twenty-two-month period even when the child is physically staying with the parent.

In re I.L. · filed 2023-05-18(B)(1)(d)

However, the fact that I.L. stayed with Mother during the time the agency was granted legal custody of the child did not alter the determination that I.L. was in the agency’s custody for 12 months or longer.

A twelve-of-twenty-two-month finding under section 2151.414(B)(1)(d), combined with a best-interest finding, supports permanent custody without an additional finding that the child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

In re C.W. · filed 2023-09-08(B)(1)(d)

Under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), that fact combined with a best-interest finding would have justified awarding CCDJFS permanent custody, without the need for an additional finding under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) that C.W. could not be placed with Father within a reasonable time.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) independently satisfies the first prong when the child has spent twelve of the prior twenty-two months in agency custody, making any error in another first-prong ground harmless.

In re H.S. · filed 2023-09-11(B)(1)(d)

The trial court need only find that one of the statutory factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) apply. Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), the trial court may grant permanent custody to a movant if a child has been in the temporary custody for 12 out of the prior 22 months. ... The trial court made a finding that the Agency had met the factor under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) and the record supports this determination.

The twelve-of-twenty-two-month period must accrue before the agency files its permanent-custody motion; time between filing and the permanent-custody hearing does not count.

In re K.M. · filed 2023-09-11(B)(1)(d)

In addition, when calculating whether a child has been in an agency’s temporary custody for the requisite time, “the time that passes between the filing of a motion for permanent custody and the permanent-custody hearing does not count.” ... In other words, the child must be in the Agency’s temporary custody for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period before the Agency can move for permanent custody on R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) grounds.

Once the supported twelve-of-twenty-two-month ground is undisputed, the court proceeds to consider whether the best-interest finding is supported by clear and convincing evidence.

In re S.M. · filed 2024-02-12(B)(1)(d)

On appeal, Lindsey and Samuel do not dispute that MCCS satisfied the R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) “12 in 22-standard”, a finding which is also supported by the record. Therefore, we move on to consider whether the finding of the trial court as to the best interest of the child is also supported by clear and convincing evidence.

A twelve-of-twenty-two-month finding, together with a best-interest finding, is sufficient to grant permanent custody.

In re D.R. · filed 2024-05-03(B)(1)(d)

The 12 of 22 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.

Proof that a child spent twelve of twenty-two consecutive months in agency custody is alone sufficient to establish grounds for permanent custody.

In re D.B. · filed 2024-05-15(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.

Proof that a child remained in agency temporary custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period is sufficient to establish section 2151.414(B)(1)(d)'s first-prong ground for permanent custody.

In re A.M. · filed 2024-06-20(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. ... Therefore, a finding that grounds existed for permanent custody cannot be against the manifest weight of the evidence.

When section 2151.414(B)(1)(d)'s twelve-of-twenty-two-month ground is established, the court need not also decide under subsection (B)(1)(a) whether the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent; only best interests remain.

In re B.S. · filed 2024-10-23(B)(1)(d)

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.

For section 2151.414(B)(1)(d), the twelve-month period is measured from entry into agency custody to the filing of the permanent-custody motion; time between filing and the hearing does not count.

In re J.H. · filed 2024-10-24(B)(1)(d)

In addition, when calculating whether a child has been in an agency’s temporary custody for the requisite time, “the time that passes between the filing of a motion for permanent custody and the permanent-custody hearing does not count.” ... In other words, “the time-period for R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) is calculated from when the child enters custody of the agency and the filing of the motion for permanent custody.”

For section 2151.414(B)(1)(d), temporary custody begins on the earlier of the adjudication date or sixty days after removal, and the twelve-month period is measured when the agency files its motion.

In re F.R.-C. · filed 2024-10-28(B)(1)(d)

Sixty days from that date would be August 9, 2022. As the August date is the earlier of the two, that date is the one to be used for the calculation. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1). The Agency filed its motion for permanent custody on August 28, 2023. Thus, at the time the motion for permanent custody was filed, F.R.-C. had been in the temporary custody of the Agency for more than 12 months. This satisfies the requirement of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d).

A supported twelve-of-twenty-two-month finding under section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) alone satisfies the first prong when permanent custody is in the children's best interest.

In re J.W. · filed 2024-10-28(B)(1)(d)

The trial court found, and the record supports, that the children had been in the temporary custody of the Agency for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period, satisfying R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d). This finding alone can support an award of permanent custody if it is in the children's best interests.

An agency cannot use section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) unless the full twelve-month period is complete before it files the permanent-custody motion; time between filing and hearing does not count.

In re R.R. · filed 2024-10-29(B)(1)(d)

Importantly, “[a]n agency cannot seek permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) unless the time requirements are completed” before the agency files its permanent custody motion. ... Consequently, the time period that elapses between the date that an agency files a permanent custody motion and the date of the permanent custody hearing does not count.

For section 2151.414(B)(1)(d), custody begins on the earlier of adjudication or sixty days after removal, and the twelve-month period is measured when the agency moves for permanent custody.

In re J.A. · filed 2024-11-13(B)(1)(d)

Because 60 days after J.A.’s March 11 and J.D.A.’s March 15 removals were May 10 and May 14, earlier than the adjudication date, May 10 and 14 are the dates to be used in this time calculation. When CSB moved for permanent custody on June 9, 2023, each child had been in its temporary custody for more than 12 months of the prior consecutive 22 months.

An unchallenged twelve-of-twenty-two-month finding under section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) makes arguments about reasonable agency efforts under the alternative section 2151.414(E)(1) ground moot.

In re Z.B. · filed 2024-11-14(B)(1)(d)

As stated above, because the juvenile court's finding that the R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) circumstance ("12 of 22") applied was not challenged, there is no need to analyze the juvenile court's finding under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a). Mother's argument with regard to "reasonable efforts" is moot.

A stipulation that the child spent twelve of twenty-two months in agency custody eliminates the need for an additional reasonable-time placement finding.

In re R.E.-R. · filed 2024-11-15(B)(1)(d)

The parents stipulated that the child had been in the temporary custody of the agency for twelve or more months of a consecutive 22-month period. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d). ... With this stipulation, "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."

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) does not require twenty-two months of agency involvement before a permanent-custody motion; it requires twelve months of temporary custody within a consecutive twenty-two-month period.

In re A.B. · filed 2025-01-24(B)(1)(d)

R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) does not require 22 months of agency involvement before an agency seeks permanent custody of a child, it only requires that the child has been in an agency’s temporary custody for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period.

A juvenile court cannot grant permanent custody under the twelve-of-twenty-two-month provision when the agency did not request relief on that ground and the court did not cite it.

In re T.M. · filed 2025-05-29(B)(1)(d)

But the Agency’s motion did not request permanent custody under this provision, the juvenile court did not cite it, and court could not have granted the Agency’s motion pursuant to it.

A supported twelve-of-twenty-two-month finding, together with a best-interest finding, is sufficient to grant permanent custody.

In re S.D. · filed 2025-09-12(B)(1)(d)

A finding under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), coupled with a best interest finding, is sufficient to support the grant of permanent custody.

An agency need not wait twenty-two months before seeking permanent custody when the child has already been in temporary custody for twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period.

In re K.K. · filed 2025-09-18(B)(1)(d)

While R.C. 2141.414(B)(1)(d) considers whether a child has been in custody for 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, “nothing in the plain language of the statute requires a public agency to wait until a child has been in its custody for twenty-two months before filing a motion for permanent custody.”

A subsection (B)(1)(d) twelve-of-twenty-two finding combined with a best-interest finding is sufficient to support permanent custody.

In re E.E. · filed 2026-03-11(B)(1)(d)

A finding under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), coupled with a best interest finding, is sufficient to support the grant of permanent custody.

A brief period of reunification does not prevent other temporary-custody periods from satisfying the twelve-of-twenty-two calculation.

In re B.H. · filed 2026-04-03(B)(1)(d)

Additionally, the brief time B.H. was reunified with Mother does not change the calculation.

When a child has spent at least twelve of twenty-two consecutive months in agency custody, § 2151.414(B)(1)(d) requires a best-interest determination but no separate finding under subsection (E) about placement with a parent.

In the Matter of Lane, Unpublished Decision (6-1-2004) · filed 2004-06-01(B)(1)(d)

Thus, pursuant to the enumerated factors listed in R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1), an R.C. 2151.414 (E) determination, as to whether a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable amount of time or should not be placed with the parent, is only required under subpart (a) of that section of the Revised Code. Under subparts (b) through (d), the Revised Code only requires the court to make a best interest determination. It is unnecessary for the court to make any further findings.

When a child has been in agency custody for at least 12 of 22 consecutive months, § 2151.414(B)(1)(d) makes the child's best interests the focus without requiring a finding about placement with a parent within a reasonable time.

In Re Brown, Unpublished Decision (8-3-2004) · filed 2004-08-03(B)(1)(d)

Despite our agreement that in some of these areas there does appear to have been some improvement, the record in this case indicates that the children had been in the temporary custody of FCCS for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period and that, in such cases, the court's analysis does not focus upon whether the child can or should be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, but upon the best interest of the child.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) makes a supported finding of 12 months of agency custody within 22 months an alternative ground for permanent custody, so a finding about placement with a parent is unnecessary.

In the Matter of sunderman/daniels, Unpublished Decision (8-30-2004) · filed 2004-08-30(B)(1)(d)

As noted previously, these findings are alternative findings. See R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a) and (d). Either of these 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).

A finding that a child spent twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period in agency temporary custody is sufficient to proceed to the best-interest inquiry without resolving abandonment.

In the Matter of villanueva/hampton, Unpublished Decision (8-30-2004) · filed 2004-08-30(B)(1)(d)

As the court's presently unchallenged R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d) "12 of 22" finding was a sufficient basis to move directly to the best interest phase of the proceedings, (see, e.g., In re Ball/Butler Children, Stark App. No. 2003CA00015, 2003-Ohio-1899, ¶ 39; In re Whipple Children, Stark App. No. 2002CA00406, 2003-Ohio-1101, ¶ 26), appellant's arguments are without merit.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) permits permanent custody when a child has spent at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period in temporary agency custody and permanent custody is in the child’s best interest, without a finding under subsection (E) that the child cannot or should not be placed with a parent.

In Re Brooks, Unpublished Decision (7-22-2004) · filed 2004-07-22(B)(1)(d)

On the contrary, 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 could be lawfully terminated upon a finding that her children 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. R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d).

The twelve months of temporary custody must accrue before the permanent custody motion is filed; time between filing and the hearing does not count.

In Re Arnold, Unpublished Decision (3-28-2005) · filed 2005-03-28(B)(1)(d)

Accordingly, the trial court must have considered the time between the filing of the permanent custody motion and the permanent custody hearing in determining that the children had been in Children's Services' custody for a period of twelve months. Based on the Supreme Court's holding in In re C.W., it was error for the trial court to consider such time in calculating how long the children had been in the temporary custody of Children's Services.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) requires the child to have been in agency temporary custody for 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period before the agency files a permanent custody motion relying on that ground.

In Re G. H., 08ca009391 (8-18-2008) · filed 2008-08-18(B)(1)(d)

In order to satisfy the statutory requirements of R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d), the children must have been in the temporary custody of an agency for 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period before the motion for permanent custody is filed in reliance on that factor. ... Consequently, R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d) may not be relied on in satisfaction of the first prong of the permanent custody test in this case.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) cannot alone support permanent custody when its 12-of-22-month requirement is unmet and the court makes no finding under another first-prong ground.

In re K.T. · filed 2016-09-14(B)(1)(d)

In its order granting permanent custody to CSB, the trial court found that the children had been in the temporary custody of CSB for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period, citing R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d). The court made no alternative finding in support of the requisite first prong of the permanent custody test. ... This Court sustains Grandmother’s first assignment of error and Father G.’s sole assignment of error.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) measures when a child entered an agency’s temporary custody from the earlier of adjudication or 60 days after removal when applying the 12-of-22-month ground for permanent custody.

In re C.S. · filed 2021-09-15(B)(1)

C.S. had been in the agency’s temporary custody for approximately 21 months at the time CSB filed its motion for permanent custody. See R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) (setting the date that a child enters the temporary custody of the agency as the earlier of the date of the child’s adjudication or 60 days after the child’s removal from the home).

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) requires a child to have spent at least 12 of the prior 22 consecutive months in agency temporary custody when the permanent custody motion is filed.

In re L.E. · filed 2022-03-03(B)(1)(d)

As we have previously noted in our review of the procedural history of these cases, the record establishes that each child had been in the temporary custody of the agency for a period of time in excess of twelve of the prior twenty-two consecutive months at the time the permanent custody motion was filed.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) allows permanent custody when a child has spent at least 12 of the prior 22 consecutive months in agency custody and permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In re Y.M. · filed 2022-03-08(B)(1)(d)

The 12 of 22 finding alone, in conjunction with a best interest finding, is sufficient to support the grant of permanent custody.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) satisfies the first requirement for permanent custody when a child has spent at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period in agency custody; the court need not also find that another condition in subsection (B)(1) applies.

In re M.G. · filed 2022-03-31(B)(1)(d)

Because the time requirements under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) were satisfied, it was unnecessary for the court to determine whether R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) or (b) were applicable to the circumstances presented in this matter.

A child’s temporary custody with an agency for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period satisfies the first prong of the permanent custody analysis without a separate finding under subsection (B)(1)(a).

In re L.C. · filed 2022-05-12(B)(1)(d)

In this case, the trial court found the presence of the R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) factor — that L.C. has been in the temporary custody of the agency for 12 or more months out of a consecutive 22-month period. As the record reflects, the child has been in the temporary custody of the agency for over 18 months at the time the agency filed for permanent custody. Although not necessary, the trial court made the additional finding pursuant to (B)(1)(a) — that the child cannot be placed with either mother or father within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either mother or father.

The 12-of-22-month ground for permanent custody must be satisfied when the agency files its motion.

In re E.C. · filed 2024-01-26(B)(1)(d)

As set forth above, a motion for permanent custody must allege grounds which exist at the time the motion is filed, In re C.W., supra, at ¶ 24, which is not the case with LCCS’s motion. Thus, LCCS had no basis to move for permanent custody of E.C. under the “12 out of 22” provision. Consequently, we find that the juvenile court’s finding that the “12 out of 22” provision applied is not supported by sufficient evidence.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) provides an independent ground for permanent custody when the child has been in agency custody for at least twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period and permanent custody is in the child’s best interest.

In re A.J. · filed 2024-08-28(B)(1)(d)

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

The twelve-of-twenty-two-month ground does not support permanent custody when the agency moves for it less than twelve months after the child entered temporary custody.

In re M.J. · filed 2025-02-18(B)(1)(d)

Therefore, for purposes of the “12 of 22” calculation, the children entered the agency’s temporary on May 16, 2022, and MCJFS moved for permanent custody less than nine months later, on January 24, 2023. ... Because the trial court’s “12 of 22” finding was not supported by the record, this Court must address Mother’s challenge to the trial court’s finding that she failed to substantially remedy the conditions that caused Ma.J. and J.J. to remain placed outside the home.

Twelve months of agency custody within a consecutive twenty-two-month period satisfies the first part of the permanent-custody test, making an abandonment finding unnecessary.

In re K.L. · filed 2014-12-19(B)(1)(d)

Given that K.L. had been in ... GCCS’s custody for more than twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two month period, the trial court’s abandonment finding was unnecessary to the initial part of the two-part custody test set forth above.

The best-interest analysis affords a parent a reasonable, but not indefinite, period to remedy the conditions that caused the children's removal.

In re M.C. · filed 2014-11-24(D)(1)(d)

“A child's best interests are served by the child being placed in a permanent situation that fosters growth, stability, and security.” In re Keaton, 4th Dist. Ross Nos. 04CA2785 and 04CA2788, 2004-Ohio-6210, ¶ 61. A parent is afforded a reasonable, not an indefinite, period of time to remedy the conditions causing the children's removal.

Section 2151.414(E)(1)'s reference to conditions causing a child to be placed outside the home includes both conditions that led to the initial removal and home-environment problems identified after removal that caused the court to continue the out-of-home placement.

In Re J. H., 24555 (5-13-2009) · filed 2009-05-13(E)(1)

Although Father suggests that the trial court had no authority to consider parenting problems that were not set forth in CSB's dependency and neglect complaint, the language of R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) is not limited to home conditions that were identified by the agency at the time of the initial removal of the children. R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) requires clear and convincing evidence that the parent failed to substantially remedy "the conditions causing the [children] to be placed outside [their] home." This Court has construed this language to encompass not only the conditions that led to the initial removal of the children from the home, but also problems with the home environment that the agency identified after the children's removal, which caused the juvenile court to continue its placement of the children outside the home.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) requires a court to find that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time when, despite reasonable case planning and diligent agency efforts, the parent continuously and repeatedly fails to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child's removal.

In Re: Taylor, Unpublished Decision (4-13-1998) · filed 1998-04-13(E)(1)

However, in addition to the best interest determination, the trial court must also consider the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1). ... Under subsection (E) (1), due to their incarceration, appellants were unable, through the case plan, to remedy the situation that originally caused the child to be removed from their home.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) measures the conditions causing removal as those existing when the child was removed.

Matter of Linda M., Unpublished Decision (4-24-1998) · filed 1998-04-24(E)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) refers to the conditions existing at the time of the child's removal.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) requires reasonable case planning and diligent agency efforts to help parents remedy the problems that caused a child's removal before the court finds that the child cannot or should not be placed with them.

Matter of Maloney, Unpublished Decision (5-18-1999) · filed 1999-05-18(E)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) states that the agency must undertake "* * * reasonable case planning and diligent efforts * * * to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child to be placed outside the home* * *." ... We hold that the court had more than sufficient evidence presented before it to find that the agency undertook reasonable case planning and diligent efforts for these parents although the court mistakenly stated that CCDHS made "reasonable efforts" rather than "diligent" efforts.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) does not require a six-month period of failure; repeated failure to remedy the conditions causing removal is sufficient.

Matter of Shuman, Unpublished Decision (5-19-1999) · filed 1999-05-19(E)(1)

Effective August 8, 1996, a court no longer has to find that the parent had failed for six months to correct the problems at issue. Evidence of a repeated failure to remedy is sufficient.

Section 2151.414(E) permits a court to find that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent when clear and convincing evidence shows that the parent has not substantially remedied the conditions leading to removal or lacks commitment to providing an adequate permanent home.

In Matter Of: Kriest, Unpublished Decision (8-6-1999) · filed 1999-08-06(E)(1), (E)(4)

R.C. 2151.414 (E) provides that a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with the parents, if the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence: "(1) Following the placement of the child outside the child's home and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the child's home. ... "(4) The parent had demonstrated a lack of commitment toward the child by failing to regularly support, visit, or communicate with the child when able to do so, or by other actions showing an unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home for the child." ... That the children were placed with the CSB voluntarily did not absolve appellant of her obligation to follow the objectives. According to the evidence that was presented, she has repeatedly failed to comply with the plan. Therefore, the court did not err by granting the CSB permanent custody.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) requires an agency relying on a parent's failure to remedy removal conditions to provide a case plan and time to correct those conditions; a prior case plan cannot substitute for one tied to the current removal.

In Matter Of: James C., Unpublished Decision (8-20-1999) · filed 1999-08-20(E)(1)

With respect to the R.C. 2151.414 (E) (1) factor, failure to remedy the cause for removal, we agree with appellant that the court erred in finding that this factor had been proven. There was no case plan developed under the most recent removal of the children that gave appellant an opportunity to remedy the situation so that her children could be returned to her. ... R.C. 2151.414 (E) (1) requires that the agency provide a case plan and time to remedy the situation that led to the removal of the children from the household. ... We held that the juvenile court erred when it concluded that R.C. 2151.414 (E) (1) had been proven when there was no case plan nor time for appellant to correct the situation which caused the removal of her children before the agency filed for permanent custody. ... We noted that an agency need not give every parent an opportunity to correct the situation that caused the removal of their children; but, if the agency seeks to argue that the parent did not rectify the causes for removal, then it must have given the parent a case plan and opportunity to do so. ... In this case, the agency determined that it would not provide appellant with a case plan outlining the specific behaviors she needed to correct in order to be reunited with her children. ... We find that because the agency chose not to provide appellant with case plan objectives, it cannot later use appellant's failure to participate in certain services as evidence that she failed to remedy the problems that initially caused the children to be placed outside the home. ... Therefore, we find that the agency did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that it diligently assisted appellant when it refused to develope a case plan for her.

Under subsection (E)(1), a court may find that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent only when clear and convincing evidence shows that, despite reasonable case planning and diligent agency efforts, the parent continuously and repeatedly failed to substantially remedy the conditions that caused the child's removal.

In Matter of M., Unpublished Decision (8-20-1999) · filed 1999-08-20(E)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 (E) directs that this threshold conclusion may only be entered if, following a hearing, the court concludes that there is clear and convincing evidence that one of the twelve predicate conditions enumerated in R.C. 2151.414 (E) (1)-(12) exists. ... Our examination of the record reveals that the trial court's conclusion that appellants failed to substantially remedy the problems which caused their child to be removed from the home is not supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing proof of the child's best interests and that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent; under subsection (E), one enumerated parental condition is sufficient for that placement finding.

In the Matter of Davis, Unpublished Decision (11-5-1999) · filed 1999-11-05(B), (B)(1), (E), (E)(1), (E)(4)

In determining whether to grant permanent custody of a child who is neither abandoned nor orphaned, a court must apply a two-part test enunciated in R.C. 2151.414 (B). ... First, the court must find that a grant of permanent custody to the agency seeking it is in the best interests of the children. R.C. 2151.414 (B). Second, the court must 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. R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1). ... The agency seeking permanent custody has the burden of satisfying each of these prongs by clear and convincing evidence. ... Proof of any of the enumerated factors by clear and convincing evidence mandates a determination that the children should not be placed with their parents. ... We therefore find no error in the juvenile court's determination that R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) was established by clear and convincing evidence. ... The record supports the court's finding that the PCDHS established this factor by clear and convincing evidence. ... We therefore find that competent, credible evidence existed to support the trial court's finding that the R.C. 2151.414 (E)(4) factors were established.

Section 2151.414(C) bars denying an agency's permanent-custody motion solely because the agency failed to implement a particular aspect of the child's case plan.

Matter of Baby Boy Eddy, Unpublished Decision (11-12-1999) · filed 1999-11-12(C)

The statute calls for reasonable, not flawless, case planning, and further mandates that "[t]he court shall not deny an agency's motion for permanent custody solely because the agency failed to implement any particular aspect of the child's case plan." R.C. 2151.414 (C).

When assessing whether a parent remedied the conditions that led to removal, § 2151.414(E)(1) requires the court to consider whether the parent used medical, psychiatric, and psychological services made available to the parent.

In Re Sprinkle, Unpublished Decision (11-24-1999) · filed 1999-11-24(E)(1)

In determining whether the parent attempted to remedy the conditions that precipitated removal, the court is to consider whether the parent utilized medical, psychiatric, and psychological services made available to her. R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1). The psychological report submitted to the court, dated September 18, 1998, found that appellant's "cognitive functioning is impaired," and concluded that appellant was unable to care for Amanda at that time. Among the recommendations by the psychologist was that she attend psychotherapy sessions. Yet, the testimony of the Children Services caseworker indicated that the appellant did not believe she had a mental health problem, nor had she received any counseling for her mental health problems.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) requires a court to determine whether, despite reasonable case planning and diligent agency efforts, a parent continuously and repeatedly failed to substantially remedy the conditions that caused the child's removal, including through use of offered services.

In Re Hosler, Unpublished Decision (12-1-1999) · filed 1999-12-01(E)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 (E) provides a list of twelve factors that a court must consider in order to properly enter a finding that a child cannot be placed with either parent. In the present case, the trial court found R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) applicable. This section of the statute provides: Following the placement of the child outside the child's home and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the child's home. In determining whether the parents have substantially remedied those conditions, the court shall consider parental utilization of medical, psychiatric, psychological, and other social and rehabilitative services and material resources that were made available to the parents for the purpose of changing parental conduct to allow them to resume and maintain parental duties. ... As we stated previously, the problem that initially caused both Robert and Charles to be removed from Appellant's custody was the fact that she was incarcerated and could not provide a suitable home for her children. Even though Appellant is no longer incarcerated, the record is apparent that the problem of appropriate housing continues to persist. ... Thus, we find that the trial court's determination that the children could not be placed with Appellant within a reasonable period of time was based upon clear and convincing evidence.

Section 2151.414(E) requires a predicate finding supported by clear and convincing evidence of an enumerated condition, and failure to follow a case plan or unpleasantness toward social workers alone is not an enumerated unfitness equivalent.

In Re Stacey S. · filed 1999-12-30(E)(1), (E)(4)

We note that the failure to follow a case plan is not one of the unfitness equivalents enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(E).

Section 2151.414(E)(1) requires the court to find that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent when, despite reasonable case planning and diligent agency efforts, the parent continuously and repeatedly fails to substantially remedy the conditions that caused removal.

In Re Williams, Unpublished Decision (2-10-2000) · filed 2000-02-10(E)(1)

The judge may then grant permanent custody at the dispositional hearing if he determines by clear and convincing evidence, in accordance with R.C. 2151.414 (E), "that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, or should not be placed with either parent, and if it determines, in accordance with 2151.414(D), that permanent commitment is in the best interest of the child. R.C. 2151.353 (A)(4)." ... It is clear that Tyrene could not be placed with Williams within a reasonable period of time and, under R.C. 2151.414 (E), Williams demonstrated a lack of commitment toward her child.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) requires a court, upon clear and convincing evidence, to find that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent when, despite reasonable case planning and diligent agency efforts, the parent continuously and repeatedly fails to substantially remedy the conditions that led to removal.

Matter of Hahn, Unpublished Decision (2-25-2000) · filed 2000-02-25(E)(1)

Thus, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred in finding that CCDHS utilized reasonable case planning and diligent efforts to assist Hahn in remedying the conditions which had caused Austin to be placed in foster care. ... The record also supports the trial court's finding that Hahn failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions which had caused the child to be placed outside her home.

Section 2151.414(B) permits permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence shows that custody is in the child's best interest and the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, with the conditions in Section 2151.414(E)(1) and (2) supporting that placement determination.

In the Matter of Kia M., Unpublished Decision (6-2-2000) · filed 2000-06-02(B), (E)(1), (E)(2)

Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B) the trial court could grant permanent custody of Lea and Kia to LCCS if the court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) it is in the best interest of Lea and Kia to grant permanent custody to LCCS and (2) Lea and Kia cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. ... The trial court did consider whether the evidence presented in the case met the statutory factors found in R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) and (2) and terminated appellant's parental rights after it ruled that the factors were met.

Under section 2151.414(E)(1), a court must find that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time when, despite reasonable case planning and diligent agency efforts, the parents continuously and repeatedly fail to substantially remedy the conditions that caused removal.

In the Matter of Christina Y., Unpublished Decision (6-9-2000) · filed 2000-06-09(E)(1)

The question under R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) is whether the parents have substantially remedied the problem or problems that prompted the children's removal from the home. This is a very narrow factual question. ... In the present case, the girls were removed from appellants' home and care on October 20, 1997 following an emergency shelter care hearing. ... Accordingly, these were the reasons for the children's removal from the home. ... Accordingly, it cannot be said that appellants failed to substantially remedy a condition that caused the children's removal from the home.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) does not make failure to complete every case-plan requirement sufficient by itself; the court must consider whether the parent complied with plan terms and objectives related to the conditions causing the child's removal.

In the Matter of Hogle, Unpublished Decision (6-27-2000) · filed 2000-06-27(E)(1)

A parent's failure to complete all aspects of a case plan is not per se grounds for finding that a parent has failed to remedy the conditions causing the child's removal from the home. ... Thus, under R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1), the relevant inquiry is not simply whether the parents complied with all aspects of the case plan but whether they complied with the terms and objectives of a case plan related to the conditions causing the child's removal.

Under Section 2151.414(E)(1), a parent's partial compliance with a case plan does not prevent a finding that a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time when the parent has not substantially remedied the conditions causing removal.

In the Matter of Justice, Unpublished Decision (4-24-2000) · filed 2000-04-24(E)(1)

Although appellant and Mike have partially complied with the case plan, they have failed to substantially remedy the conditions causing the children to remain outside their home.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) requires a court deciding whether a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent to consider whether, despite reasonable case planning and diligent agency efforts, the parent continuously and repeatedly failed to substantially remedy the conditions that caused the child's removal.

In the Matter of Leftwich, Unpublished Decision (8-29-2000) · filed 2000-08-29(E)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) states: Following the placement of the child outside the child's home and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the child's home. In determining whether the parents have substantially remedied those conditions, the court shall consider parental utilization of medical, psychiatric, psychological, and other social and rehabilitative services and material resources that were made available to the parents for the purpose of changing parental conduct to allow them to resume and maintain parental duties. ... A review of the record shows that competent, credible evidence supports the court's finding that appellant continuously failed to remedy the conditions that caused the children to be removed from the home.

Under R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1), a court must find that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent when, despite reasonable case planning and diligent agency efforts, the parent continuously and repeatedly fails to substantially remedy the conditions that led to removal.

In the Matter of Geraldine Hickok, Unpublished Decision (9-1-2000) · filed 2000-09-01(E)(1)

The plain language of R.C. 2151.414 (E) states that the court must enter a finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent in the event that one or more of the listed factors applies. ... We have already concluded that the record contains competent, credible evidence to support the trial court's finding that R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) applies to this case.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) requires a court to find that a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time when clear and convincing evidence shows the parent continuously and repeatedly failed to substantially remedy the conditions that led to temporary custody.

In Re Glenn · filed 2000-10-30(E)(1)

If it is shown by clear and convincing evidence that a parent has continuously and repeatedly failed to substantially remedy the conditions which led to the grant of temporary custody of her children to a children's services agency, the court must find that the children cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable time. R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1). The evidence presented before the juvenile court clearly and convincingly established that Glenn and Young failed to rectify the conditions that led to the temporary custody order. Under the circumstances, we conclude the trial court properly decided the children could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) permits a permanent-custody finding when, despite reasonable case planning and diligent agency efforts, a parent continuously and repeatedly fails for at least six months to substantially remedy the conditions that led to the child's removal.

In the Matter Carter, Unpublished Decision (11-2-2000) · filed 2000-11-02(E)(1)

The fact that Betty's noncompliance fulfills the requirements of R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) is enough to justify the court's placement of the children in permanent custody.

Section 2151.414 permits permanent custody where parents persistently fail to address removal conditions or establish a bond with the child, and belated efforts after the custody hearing is set do not demonstrate parental commitment.

In Re Meadows, Unpublished Decision (11-27-2000) · filed 2000-11-27(E)(1), (E)(4)

It is obvious that neither parent made any effort to fulfill the case plan or establish any bonds with the child until after the permanent custody hearing was set. This "too little, too late" effort was not an indication of any commitment to the child or parenting but was the last failure in an attempt to fulfill the objectives of the case plan. ... Based upon the parents' failure to meet the objectives set forth in the case plan, we find there was clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's decision to grant permanent custody of the child to appellee.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) permits consideration of events from the initial removal where children were later returned under continuing protective supervision and case-plan obligations before being removed again.

In the Matter of Norris and Boling, Unpublished Decision (12-12-2000) · filed 2000-12-12(E)(1)

In reaching this determination, the court properly relied on events occurring before Ms. Norris regained custody of her children in May 1999. The "initial removal" of the children occurred in November 1997. The children were returned to Ms. Norris but the case was not closed at that point and ACCS retained protective supervision over the children. ... Here, however, Ms. Norris was still required to comply with her case plan and was still receiving services from ACCS. Therefore, based on the plain language of R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1), the court was authorized to consider the events occurring at the time when the children were first removed from Ms. Norris' home.

Section 2151.414 permits a finding that a parent has not substantially remedied a drug problem despite several months of sobriety when an eighteen-month treatment program has barely begun, earlier treatment failed, and relapse remains possible.

In the Matter of Burton v. C.C.D.C.F.S., Unpublished Decision (12-14-2000) · filed 2000-12-14(E)(1)

Appellant first argues that she substantially remedied the condition causing the removal of her children, viz., her drug abuse problem. Appellant stresses that, at the time of the hearing, she had been clean for almost four months and was enrolled in a drug treatment program. However, appellant had only completed over two months of an eighteen-month program. Appellant had failed to successfully complete drug treatment programs in the past. Moreover, appellant's own witnesses acknowledged the possibility that she could relapse and start using drugs again. Therefore, the trial court did not err in finding that appellant had failed to substantially remedy her drug problem.

Section 2151.414 permits a failure-to-remedy finding where parents have not completed the case plan and belated efforts begin only after the permanent-custody motion.

In Re Dixon, Unpublished Decision (04-09-2001) · filed 2001-04-09(E)(1)

Clearly neither parent completed the case plan. Mr. Dixon made no attempts to complete the case plan until after the motion for permanent custody had been filed. The evidence establishes this was an attempt to do "too little, too late" some eleven months after the filing of the case plan. ... Upon review, we find there is clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's decision to grant permanent custody of the child to appellee.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) permits a finding against parental placement when, after two years, a parent has not completed the case plan, lacks stable housing and financial means, and continues to test positive for drugs.

In Re Goolsby, Unpublished Decision (4-19-2001) · filed 2001-04-19(E)(1)

Here, Graves admitted that she had not completed her case plan even though it had been two years since Rodeisha had been removed from her care; that she did not have the financial means to take custody of Rodeisha nor did she have stable housing; and that she recently had two positive urine screens. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that following the placement of the child outside the home the mother had failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions that caused the child to be placed outside the home and therefore, the child cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parent.

Failure to seek required substance-abuse treatment while remaining unemployed and without suitable housing can support a finding under Section 2151.414(E) that the children cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable time.

Runyon v. Runyon, Unpublished Decision (07-09-2001) · filed 2001-07-09(E)(1)

Mother acknowledges a lengthy history of substance abuse. Despite this and the fact her case plan required her to address the problem, mother did not seek treatment until her most recent incarceration. During the pendency of the matter, mother remained unemployed and failed to provide suitable and stable housing for the children. ... In light of this evidence and the entire record in this matter, we find the trial court's determination the children could not be placed with mother within a reasonable period of time was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Continuing inability to cope with a child’s defiant behavior or respond appropriately can establish failure to remedy removal conditions under Section 2151.414(E)(1).

In Re Zimmerman, Unpublished Decision (8-15-2001) · filed 2001-08-15(E)(1)

The evidence that Raymond's parents were unable to cope with his defiant behavior along with their inability to respond appropriately could be found to establish by clear and convincing evidence that appellants failed to substantially remedy the conditions that prompted the removal of Raymond from the home.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) supports a finding against placement within a reasonable time where a parent postpones ordered sexual-abuse therapy for more than a year and begins only days before the permanent-custody hearing.

In Re Puckett, Unpublished Decision (9-17-2001) · filed 2001-09-17(E)(1)

In response to the evidence it received, the trial court ordered appellant to seek sexual abuse therapy. Appellant did not do so for more than a year while his children continued their placement in foster care. In fact, appellant did not engage in any form of therapy until days before the permanent custody hearings. ... The trial court was faced with the duration of time in which the children had no permanent living plans compared with the prospect of appellant just commencing therapy and its unknown success. At the time of the permanent custody hearings, the trial court was presented with clear and convincing evidence that the children could not be placed with appellant within a reasonable time.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) and (2) support a finding against parental placement when chronic drug abuse remains unremedied and the parent has only joined a treatment waiting list of indefinite duration.

In Re Carroll, Unpublished Decision (10-10-2001) · filed 2001-10-10(E)(1), (E)(2)

Although she may have demonstrated that she was willing to take the first step toward sobriety, she had not yet taken even that first step. Because she was merely on a waiting list, of indefinite duration, it is unknown when she will be able to begin this treatment. The trial court had ample evidence before it from which it could find that Carroll failed to substantially remedy the conditions that caused Terrence's removal and that her chronic substance abuse prevented her from providing Terrence with an adequate permanent home now or within one year. R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) and (2). Therefore, the trial court was required to find that Terrence could not or should not be placed with Carroll within a reasonable time.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) permits permanent custody despite increasing case-plan compliance during the hearing when substantial compliance remains lacking after prolonged delay and the children need permanence.

In Re Conner, Unpublished Decision (11-02-2001) · filed 2001-11-02(E)(1)

Although Castle's efforts to comply with her case plan increased over the course of the permanent custody hearing, the trial court reasonably determined that she did not substantially comply. Furthermore, she delayed unnecessarily in making attempts to comply, and the trial court was justified in finding that the children needed permanence in their lives after two and a half years in foster care.

Continued cocaine and marijuana use after removal, despite treatment efforts, supports a failure-to-remedy finding under section 2151.414(E)(1).

In Re Babus, Unpublished Decision (12-13-2001) · filed 2001-12-13(E)(1)

The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that despite the diligent efforts of the CCDCFS, the parents had failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the children to be placed outside the home. The court also found that the children cannot now or in the near future be reunited with the parents and that it was in the best interest of the children to award permanent custody to CCDCFS. These findings are supported by both competent and credible evidence in the record. ... After her children were removed from her care in 1998, she continued to use cocaine and marijuana.

Case plans and witness testimony may support a determination whether removal conditions have been remedied without separate exhibits documenting the adjudicated facts.

In the Matter of Brittany T., Unpublished Decision (12-21-2001) · filed 2001-12-21(E)(1)

We note, however, that the trial court had before it evidence consisting of the parents' case plans and the testimony of several individuals as summarized above, from which it could make an informed decision as to whether the parents had remedied the conditions that had led to the removal of the children from the home. This argument is without merit.

Failure to secure housing and to protect children from sexual abuse supports a finding that removal conditions remain unremedied under section 2151.414(E)(1).

In the Matter of Theaderman, Unpublished Decision (1-18-2002) · filed 2002-01-18(E)(1)

The record in this case amply demonstrates that appellants failed to remedy the conditions that caused the children to be removed from the home. Appellants' home was absolutely filthy when Keri and Anthony were removed. The home was infested with roaches, and animal feces were on the floor. By the time of the dispositional hearing, appellants were homeless and residing in a motel. Appellants admitted that as many as twelve different men sexually abused Keri while in their care. Donald confessed that he received cigarettes, cigars and soda pop in return. Mary confessed to knowledge of the acts, but did nothing to protect Keri.

Continuing to live and maintain an affectionate relationship with a child’s abuser can support a failure-to-remedy finding under Section 2151.414(E)(1).

In the Matter of Haag, Unpublished Decision (2-25-2002) · filed 2002-02-25(E)(1)

The record in this case demonstrates that appellant failed to remedy the conditions that caused the children to be removed from the home. Even after Christison severely abused DJ, appellant continued to reside with him. Although she denied having contact with him, witnesses testified that she worked with him and was affectionate toward him.

Repeated failure to provide a safe, sanitary home and to manage children’s behavior can support permanent custody under Section 2151.414.

In Re Highland, Unpublished Decision (2-28-2002) · filed 2002-02-28

The parents' repeated failure to provide a safe and sanitary home and their inability to control the behavior of these challenged children justified the court's decision to terminate their parental rights and award permanent custody to the county. That decision was supported by competent, credible evidence in the record.

Section 2151.414 allows time to improve removal conditions, and an agency that makes no effort to investigate whether those conditions changed fails its burden.

In Re Hauserman, Unpublished Decision (3-11-2002) · filed 2002-03-11

R.C. 2151.414 et seq. specifically allows a parent the opportunity and time to improve upon the conditions that may exist at the time of removal. The county made no effort to observe whether those conditions had changed. Thus it did not meet its burden.

A parent's failure to remedy the conditions that caused the child's removal is sufficient under section 2151.414(E)(1) to find that the child cannot be placed with that parent within a reasonable time.

In Re Watts, Unpublished Decision (5-10-2002) · filed 2002-05-10(E)(1)

Watts' failure to remedy the conditions that caused Destiny's removal would be sufficient to justify the trial court's finding that Destiny could not be placed with him within a reasonable time.

Under section 2151.414(E)(1), the dispositive question is whether the parent remedied the conditions that caused removal, not whether the parent substantially complied with the case plan.

In Re Heatherly, Unpublished Decision (6-19-2002) · filed 2002-06-19(E)(1)

Nevertheless, the question before this court is not simply whether Appellant has complied with her case plan. This court has previously indicated that even where there has been substantial compliance with a case plan, that, in and of itself, does not prove that a grant of permanent custody to an agency is erroneous. In re Watkins v. Harris (Aug. 30, 1995), 9th Dist. No. 17068, at 9. The dispositive issue, relevant to R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1), is not whether the parent has substantially complied with the case plan; rather, it is whether the parent has substantially remedied the conditions that caused the child's removal from the home.

Under subsection (E)(1), the issue is whether the parent substantially remedied the conditions that caused removal, not whether the parent substantially complied with the case plan.

In Re Palladino, Unpublished Decision (10-18-2002) · filed 2002-10-18(E)(1)

{¶ 16} Therefore the issue is not whether the parent has substantially complied with the case plan, but "whether the parent has substantially remedied the conditions that caused the child's removal." ... {¶ 20} The record before us clearly and convincingly establishes that appellant has failed "continuously and repeatedly" in her attempts to substantially remedy the conditions that initially resulted in James being taken away from her. ... For the foregoing reasons, we cannot say the trial court erred in reaching its conclusion under R.C. 2951.414(E)(1).

Subsection (E)(1) was satisfied where, despite reasonable agency efforts, the parent failed to maintain employment, obtain independent housing, leave a high-risk relationship, or develop more than minimal parenting skills.

In the Matter of Dylan R., Unpublished Decision (1-10-2003) · filed 2003-01-10(E)(1)

The facts of this cause, as cited above, constitute clear and convincing evidence that the condition named in R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) exists. Appellant's inability to maintain steady employment, to find independent housing, to end his unstable relationship with Dylan's mother for the sake of his child, and to achieve more than minimal parenting skills demonstrate that, despite the more than reasonable efforts of the LCCS to aid appellant in remedying the conditions that caused Dylan's removal from his home, appellant continuously and repeatedly failed to remedy those conditions.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) supports permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence shows that, despite agency case planning and diligent assistance, a parent continuously and repeatedly failed to remedy the conditions that caused the child's removal.

In the Matter of Telson, Unpublished Decision (3-31-2003) · filed 2003-03-31(E)(1)

There is clear and convincing evidence that appellant, despite case planning and diligent efforts by FCCS to assist her to remedy the problems that caused the child to be placed outside the home, has continuously and repeatedly failed to substantially remedy the conditions.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) permits a finding that children cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time when clear and convincing evidence shows repeated removals and continued failure to remedy the causes despite services and assistance.

In the Matter of Pederson, Unpublished Decision (4-29-2003) · filed 2003-04-29(E)(1)

Based upon this court's review of the record, clear and convincing evidence was presented to establish, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1), that the children cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent.

Review of a § 2151.414(E)(1) finding asks whether the child was placed outside the home, the agency used diligent and reasonable case planning, the parent continuously and repeatedly failed to remedy the removal condition, and clear and convincing evidence proved every element.

In Re Anisha N., Unpublished Decision (5-9-2003) · filed 2003-05-09(E)(1)

a reviewing court must address certain questions when R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) is an issue: "1.) Was the child was placed outside the home? "2.) Was the agency diligent in trying to remedy the situation through reasonable caseplanning? "3.) Did the parent fail continuously and repeatedly to remedy the condition that caused the child to be removed? "4.) Were all elements proved by clear and convincing evidence?"

Repeated failure to remedy unsafe home and personal-hygiene conditions despite years of agency assistance supports findings of failure to remedy and lack of commitment under divisions (E)(1) and (E)(4).

In Re Kuhn Adjudged Dependent Child, Unpublished Decision (5-28-2003) · filed 2003-05-28(E)(1), (E)(4)

This problem has persisted over the course of CSB's eight year involvement with the family and has continued despite CSB's assistance. ... As indicated, the parents continuously failed to substantially remedy the conditions causing the children to be placed outside the home and, therefore, demonstrated a lack of commitment towards the children.

In deciding whether a parent substantially remedied the conditions causing removal, subsection (E)(1) requires consideration of the parent's use of available medical, psychiatric, psychological, social, and rehabilitative services.

McFarland v. Richland Cty. Children Svcs., Unpublished Decision (7-7-2003) · filed 2003-07-07(E)(1)

To determine whether the parents substantially remedied the conditions, the court shall consider parental utilization of medical, psychiatric, psychological, social, and rehabilitative services and resources available to the parents for the purpose of changing their conduct sufficiently to allow them to resume and maintain their parental duties.

A court may not find failure to remedy the conditions causing removal merely from a parent's failures in earlier cases without allowing time to attempt the current case plan for a newborn child.

In Re Johns, Unpublished Decision (7-7-2003) · filed 2003-07-07(E)(1)

The child sub judice is a newborn and as a result, appellant started with a clean slate as to this child. We find it was error for the trial court to predicate its decision on appellant's past failures without affording her the time to attempt to successfully complete the case plan.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) supported a failure-to-remedy finding where one parent lacked stable housing and continued contact with an abuser, while the other failed to address the child's special needs and participate in counseling.

In the Matter of Blunt, Unpublished Decision (10-17-2003) · filed 2003-10-17(E)(1)

Thus, there was competent and credible evidence that both appellants had failed to remedy the problems that initially caused the children to be removed from the home.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) supports a cannot-or-should-not-place finding when a parent makes little progress on the removal conditions despite agency assistance and the evidence gives no indication that the parent can resolve them in the future.

In the Matter of Brock, Unpublished Decision (10-20-2003) · filed 2003-10-20(E)(1)

The evidence shows that appellant is unable to properly care for and protect her children, and that, despite agency efforts to provide resources and assistance to her, appellant has made little progress on the issues that caused the removal of the children. Nor does any of the evidence indicate that appellant will be able to resolve these issues in the future.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) supports a no-placement finding when a parent fails to use offered counseling, substance-abuse treatment and testing, parenting classes, employment assistance, and housing resources despite transportation aid and provider outreach.

In Re Lisbon, Unpublished Decision (1-12-2004) · filed 2004-01-12(E)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 (E)states: ... (1) Following the placement of the child outside the child's home and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the child's home. ... Mother did not attend any substance abuse treatment or intakes for treatment. To this end, mother was given funds for transportation, offered rides to appointments, and was contacted by the service providers themselves in an attempt to reach her and engage her in services. Mother failed to drop any urine samples during the pendency of the case. Mother never signed up for Goodwill classes, she was only briefly employed. Despite being provided with housing alternatives, mother never took advantage of or followed through with the opportunities. ... Based upon the foregoing, we find the trial court did not error in finding the child could not or should not be placed with mother within a reasonable period of time.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) focuses on whether the parent substantially remedied the conditions causing removal, so substantial completion of case-plan services does not preclude permanent custody when those conditions persist and the parent remains unable to parent successfully.

In the Matter of Deserio, Unpublished Decision (2-6-2004) · filed 2004-02-06(E)(1)

While evidence was adduced that Appellant Donna DeSerio has substantially completed her case plan services, evidence was also presented that she has failed to alleviate the conditions which led to the placement of Corrina with the agency, that being her continued relationship with Charles Lyons, an alleged sex offender with whom the Agency had instructed her to have no contact. ... Regardless of Appellant Donna DeSerio's substantial compliance with her case plan, she was still not able to be a successful parent to Corrina.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) may support a finding that children cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time despite the parent's professed readiness at the hearing when the parent repeatedly missed services, left the area during the case plan, and resumed noncompliance after returning.

In the Matter of Ragland Children, Unpublished Decision (4-12-2004) · filed 2004-04-12(E)(1)

While appellant testified she is now ready to complete the case plan, she failed to attend scheduled sessions in the first four months of the case plan and then "removed herself" from the area for the next three months. Upon return from Virginia, she again failed to attend scheduled sessions. T. at 12, 32. ... We find clear and convincing evidence that the children cannot be placed with appellant or the father(s) within a reasonable time.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) supports a failure-to-remedy finding when a comprehensive reunification plan provides parenting, life-skills, budgeting, and special-needs assistance but the parents make no meaningful progress despite the agency's reasonable efforts.

In the Matter of Caine, Unpublished Decision (5-6-2004) · filed 2004-05-06(E)(1)

Appellee devised a comprehensive reunification plan to assist appellant and the children's mother in remedying the problems which caused the children to be removed. The case plan addressed various issues including sex offender counseling, assistance with budgeting, parenting and life skills, and assistance to meet the special needs of the children. ... We have reviewed the record, and we find it is replete with evidence, even setting aside the sexual abuse issues, the parties made no progress in spite of the agency's reasonable efforts to reunify the family. ... One of the statutory factors is whether despite reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems which caused the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has nevertheless continuously and repeatedly failed to substantially remedy the conditions which caused the child to be removed. The court must consider whether the parents have utilized the medical, psychiatric, psychological, and other social and rehabilitative services and material resources made available to them for the purpose of changing their conduct sufficiently to allow them to resume and maintain their parental duties. ... The record contains more than sufficient evidence to permit the trial court to make such a finding by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) supports a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent when, despite time and services for reunification, the parent fails to complete the case plan and substantially remedy the conditions causing removal.

In Re A.W., Unpublished Decision (12-8-2004) · filed 2004-12-08(E)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) provides, in relevant part: "If the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence * * * that one or more of the following exist as to each of the child's parents, the court shall enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent: "(1) Following the placement of the child outside the child's home * * * the parent has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the child's home. In determining whether the parents have substantially remedied those conditions, the court shall consider parental utilization of medical, psychiatric, psychological, and other social and rehabilitative services and material resources that were made available to the parents for the purpose of changing parental conduct to allow them to resume and maintain parental duties." ... The trial court had ample evidence before it from which it could conclude that Howell failed to substantially remedy the conditions that caused A.W. to be placed outside the home.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) requires a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent when, despite reasonable agency case planning and diligent assistance, the parent continuously and repeatedly fails to substantially remedy the conditions that caused removal.

In the Matter of Ratliff, Unpublished Decision (3-24-2005) · filed 2005-03-24(E)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 (E) also enumerates circumstances which, if found to exist, require the trial court to make the above finding. See R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1)-(16). ... Namely, some competent, credible evidence supports the trial court's R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) finding. Although appellant may have completed parenting classes, testimony at trial indicated that she failed to adequately demonstrate, at the visitations, parenting skills necessary to meet the needs of the child, as was required under the case plan. Additional testimony indicated that the extent of meaningful interaction between appellant and Prentiss at the visitations was minimal. Furthermore, testimony at trial revealed appellant's continued inability to provide stable, independent housing for the child, as was required under the case plan.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(a) and (E)(1) allow a permanent-custody finding when clear and convincing evidence shows that, despite reasonable agency efforts, a parent repeatedly failed to complete treatment and remedy the conditions that caused removal.

In Re Stutler, Unpublished Decision (11-14-2005) · filed 2005-11-14(B)(1)(a) and (E)(1)

Ohio's present statutory scheme requires a court, in determining whether a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with the parents (see R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a), supra), to consider the existence of one or more factors under R.C. 2151.414 (E), including whether or not "[f]ollowing the placement of the child outside the child's home and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the child's home." ... Upon a review of the evidence in light of the above statutory factors, we find the record contains clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's determination under R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a) and R.C. 2151.414 (E).

Section 2151.414(E)(1) supports a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with the parents when clear and convincing evidence shows that the parents continuously and repeatedly failed to substantially remedy the conditions that caused the child's removal.

In the Matter of H.M.S., Unpublished Decision (2-16-2006) · filed 2006-02-16(E)(1)

For all of the foregoing reasons, we find there was clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot or should not be placed with the parents, as they failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing H.M.S. to be placed outside her home. As the evidence supported a finding under R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1), we need not undergo an analysis of the circumstances under (E)(4) and (E)(16).

Section 2151.414(E)(1) requires a court deciding whether a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent to consider whether the parent continuously and repeatedly failed to substantially remedy the conditions that caused the child's removal despite reasonable case planning and diligent agency efforts.

In Re Foreman, Unpublished Decision (5-17-2006) · filed 2006-05-17(E)(1)

The statutory scheme further requires a court, in determining whether a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with the parents (see R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a), supra), to consider the existence of one or more factors under R.C. 2151.414 (E), including whether or not "[f]ollowing the placement of the child outside the child's home and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the child's home." See R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1); In re Bender, Stark App. No. 2004CA00015, 2004-Ohio-2268 . ... In the case sub judice, upon review of the record and the findings of fact and conclusions of law therein, particularly as to appellant's general lack of progress in dealing with her housing and employment issues, we conclude the trial court's grant of permanent custody to LCDJFS was made in the consideration of the best interests of Krislyn and Chase, and did not constitute an error or an abuse of discretion.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) requires a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent when clear and convincing evidence shows that, despite reasonable agency efforts, the parent continuously and repeatedly failed to substantially remedy the conditions that led to removal.

In Re Devon J., Unpublished Decision (7-21-2006) · filed 2006-07-21(E)(1)

This statutory section sets forth 16 conditions that the court is required to employ in making its determination. It provides that if the trial court finds by clear and convincing evidence that any one of the 16 conditions exist, the court must enter the requisite finding. ... Thus, we find that clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that the condition set forth in R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) existed.

Under § 2151.414(B)(1)(a) and (E)(1), the court must consider whether a parent substantially remedied the conditions that caused removal, not merely whether the parent substantially completed the case plan.

In Re Kyler-Lowther, Unpublished Decision (9-13-2006) · filed 2006-09-13(B)(1)(a), (E)(1)

Ohio's present statutory scheme requires a court, in determining whether a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with the parents (see R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a), supra), to consider the existence of one or more factors under R.C. 2151.414 (E), including whether or not "[f]ollowing the placement of the child outside the child's home and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the child's home." See R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1); In re Bender, Stark App. No. 2004CA00015, 2004-Ohio-2268 . ... Nonetheless, the main issue considered at this juncture in permanent custody cases is not whether the parent has substantially complied with the case plan, but whether the parent has substantially remedied the conditions that caused the child's removal.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) requires a finding that a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time when, despite reasonable case planning and diligent agency efforts, the parent continuously and repeatedly fails to substantially remedy the conditions that caused the child's removal.

In Re C.E., Unpublished Decision (9-18-2006) · filed 2006-09-18(E)(1)

The court shall enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent if one or more of several factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414 (E) are found to apply to the case. As the trial court found relevant to the present case, those factors include: ... "(1) Following the placement of the child outside the child's home and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the child's home. In determining whether the parents have substantially remedied those conditions, the court shall consider parental utilization of medical, psychiatric, psychological, and other social and rehabilitative services and material resources that were made available to the parents for the purpose of changing parental conduct to allow them to resume and maintain parental duties. ... We further find that considering the facts of this case, the trial court did not err by finding that R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) applies to the case at bar, and thus, that C.E. could not be placed with Connie within a reasonable period of time.

Under subsection (E)(1), a court must find that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent when clear and convincing evidence shows that, despite reasonable case planning and diligent agency efforts, the parent continuously and repeatedly failed to substantially remedy the conditions that led to removal.

In Re Daulton Children, Unpublished Decision (10-6-2006) · filed 2006-10-06(E)(1)

Under R.C. 2151.414 (E), the trial court must consider all relevant evidence before making this determination. The trial court is required to enter such a finding if it determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that one or more of the factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414 (E) (1) through (16) exist with respect to each of the child's parents. ... While evidence was adduced that mother has made progress toward the completion of her case plan services, evidence was also presented that she has failed to alleviate the conditions which led to the placement of the children with the agency. ... Upon a review of the evidence in light of the above statutory factors, we find the record contains clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's determination. Accordingly, the trial court did not err when it determined the children could not be placed with appellant within a reasonable time or should not be placed with appellant.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) requires the court to focus on whether the parent remedied the specific condition that initially caused the child's removal; a mother's release from incarceration remedied that condition even though she had not addressed other substance-abuse problems.

In Re Nevaeh J., Unpublished Decision (12-15-2006) · filed 2006-12-15(E)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) was inappropriately found to apply to Nicole. That section states that a child should not be placed with a parent or cannot within a reasonable time be placed with a parent if that parent "continuously and repeatedly" failed to substantially remedy the condition causing the child to be placed outside her home. The condition which initially caused Nevaeh to be placed away from her birth mother was her mother's incarceration. The judgment entry upon adjudication was based on a consent finding of dependency with no further specification. Although Nicole neither availed herself of the services to which she was referred, nor remedied her prior substance abuse issues, her incarceration ended in August 2005; therefore, the condition which caused Nevaeh to be placed in the temporary custody of LCCSB had been remedied. Since Nicole's incarceration was the specific reason for Nevaeh's removal, the court should have focused its inquiry under R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) on whether Nicole had remedied this specific condition. See In re William S. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 95 , 100 .

Under § 2151.414(E)(1), continued substance abuse and domestic violence can support a finding that a parent failed to remedy the conditions that caused the child's removal.

In the Matter of Terrence S., Unpublished Decision (2-2-2007) · filed 2007-02-02(E)(1)

In this matter, the court found that appellant has failed to remedy the conditions which caused Terrence to be placed outside the home (R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1)); that due to appellant's chronic mental illness and chemical dependence she is unable to now or within a year to provide an adequate home for Terrence (R.C. 2151.414 (E)(2)); appellant demonstrated a lack of commitment by failing to communicate with the child when able to do so (R.C. 2151.414 (E)(4)); and, appellant's loss of permanent custody of five children in Michigan for "substantially the same problems she continues to have" is an adequate equivalent of one of the R.C. 2151.414 (E)(4)(1)-(15) factors, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (E)(16). If any of these findings is properly supported in evidence, the weight of the evidence sustains the court's disposition. {¶ 21} We need look no further than the court's first finding to determine this question. The initial 2003 complaint enumerated appellant's mental illness, chemical dependence and domestic violence as the reason Terrence was removed from the home. The evidence showed that four of five drug screens obtained from appellant immediately prior to the hearing in this matter tested positive for opiates and/or other illegal substances. Additionally, there was police testimony concerning multiple domestic violence calls to appellant's residence while this matter was pending. Consequently, there was evidence submitted by which the court could have properly found that appellant had failed to remedy the conditions that caused the child to be removed from the home.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) requires a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent when, despite reasonable case planning and diligent agency efforts, the parents continuously and repeatedly fail to substantially remedy the conditions that caused the child's removal.

In Matter of Bennett Children, 2006ca00379 (6-11-2007) · filed 2007-06-11(E)(1)

If the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that one or more of a list of sixteen situations exists, which are listed in R.C. 2151.414 (E), then the court shall find that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. The first situation listed in the statute is: ... "Following the placement of the child outside the home and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the child's home. . . ." R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1). ... In short, based upon the record, we find that the trial court did not err in finding that the three children cannot and should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time and that "following the placement of the children outside the home, and not withstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the children to be placed outside the home, the parents have failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the children to be placed outside the home."

Section 2151.414(E)(1) requires a finding that children cannot be placed with a parent when clear and convincing evidence shows the parent continuously and repeatedly failed to substantially remedy the conditions that caused their out-of-home placement.

In Re R.S., 06ca009054 (6-18-2007) · filed 2007-06-18(E)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) requires the court to find that the children cannot be placed with either parent if it determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that "the parent has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy" the conditions that led to the children's placement outside the home. ... The evidence clearly established that, during the two years prior to the hearing, Mother had failed to substantially remedy the conditions that had led to her children's removal from the home. The trial court's finding that the children should not be placed with her for that reason was fully supported by the evidence.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) requires a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent when that parent has failed to substantially remedy the conditions causing removal.

In Re B. A., Unpublished Decision (9-5-2007) · filed 2007-09-05(E)(1)

There was ample evidence before the trial court to support its conclusion that both Mother and Father had failed to substantially remedy the conditions that led to the removal of B.A. and prevented her return to either of their homes. Given this finding, the trial court was required by R.C. 2151.414 (E) to conclude that B.A. could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with them.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) requires a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent when clear and convincing evidence shows that the parent continuously and repeatedly failed, despite reasonable case planning and diligent agency efforts, to substantially remedy the conditions that caused the child's removal.

In Re Cam'ron G., Unpublished Decision (12-19-2007) · filed 2007-12-19(E)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 (E) additionally provides that if the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that any one of sixteen factors listed in the statute exist, the court must find that the child cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parent. ... Based upon the foregoing, we find that there was clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's findings under R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) that Jessica G. failed to remedy the conditions that caused Cam'Ron to be removed from the family home.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) permits a finding that a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time when the parent technically follows a case plan but merely goes through the motions and makes no meaningful improvement.

In Matter of Reynolds, 2007ap090067 (1-22-2008) · filed 2008-01-22(E)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 (E) sets out the factors relevant to determining permanent custody. ... Although it is technically correct that appellant followed the mandates of the case plan, she was in fact only going through the motions. ... In reviewing the record as a whole, we find the trial court did not err. It is clear appellant has gone through the motions of the case plan, but in fact her improvement was no further along than it was at inception. The trial court was correct in concluding that after an extension of six months, neither parent would be able to have custody of the children within a reasonable length of time.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) supports a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time when the parent has had reasonable assistance and sufficient time but fails to complete the case plan or follow through with recommended treatment.

In Matter of Gerber Children, 2007ca00291 (3-10-2008) · filed 2008-03-10(E)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 (E) sets out the factors relevant to determining permanent custody. Said section states in pertinent part as follows: ... "(1) Following the placement of the child outside the child's home and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the child's home. In determining whether the parents have substantially remedied those conditions, the court shall consider parental utilization of medical, psychiatric, psychological, and other social and rehabilitative services and material resources that were made available to the parents for the purpose of changing parental conduct to allow them to resume and maintain parental duties. ... From our review of the evidence, we find from the initial complaint on August 18, 2006 to the hearing date of September 24, 2007, appellant had sufficient time to complete the case plan. Appellant was offered Northeast Ohio Behavioral Health assessment and services through Renew and Quest, yet she failed to follow through on the recommendations and treatments. She continually exposed herself to an abusive environment, even after appellee became involved with the family because of a domestic abuse report involving Mr. Gerber and one of the children. We find the evidence established that appellant failed in her case plan and made no effort to comply with the recommendations for treatment, and reasonable efforts and time were given to appellant to complete the plan.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) supports a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent when, despite reasonable agency services, the parent continuously and repeatedly fails to substantially remedy the conditions that caused the child's removal; one factor under division (E) is sufficient.

In Re Brandon R., 2008ap030011 (7-7-2008) · filed 2008-07-07(E)(1)

The court must consider all relevant evidence before determining the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parents. R.C. 2151.414 (E). The statute also indicates that if the court makes a finding under R.C. 2151.414 (E) (1) — (15), the court shall determine the children cannot or should not be placed with the parent. A trial court may base its decision that a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with a parent upon the existence of any one of the R.C. 2151.414 (E) factors. The existence of one factor alone will support a finding that the child cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable time. ... Appellant-mother failed to complete counseling services and tested positive for cocaine on at least four (4) occasions. She admitted to using cocaine in June 2007. ... Based upon the foregoing, the Court properly found the child could not or should not be returned to the appellant-mother within a reasonable time. Despite offering numerous services, the appellant-mother was unable to mitigate the concerns that led to the child's removal.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) requires a finding that a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time when, despite reasonable case planning and diligent agency assistance, the parent continuously and repeatedly fails to substantially remedy the conditions that caused the child's removal.

In Re D.M., 22594 (7-18-2008) · filed 2008-07-18(E)(1)

One such circumstance exists where, "[f]ollowing the placement of the child outside the child's home and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the child's home." R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1). ... Evidence presented at the hearing on the permanent custody motion supports the trial court's determination that Moton had made little progress toward satisfying the foregoing requirements. As the trial court noted, Moton refused to sign the necessary release until shortly before the permanent custody hearing and had not completed any of the other requirements. Therefore, based on the record before us, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion when it found, by clear and convincing evidence, that D.M. could not be placed with Moton within a reasonable time.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) permits a finding that a parent failed to remedy the conditions that caused removal when the parent had opportunities to complete significant aspects of a case plan but did not do so.

In Re MacEy R., L-08-1113 (9-24-2008) · filed 2008-09-24(E)(1)

At the very least, the record reflects that James R.'s marriage counseling — in particular, the domestic violence aspect of that counseling — was never successfully completed. The law is clear in Ohio that failure to complete significant aspects of a case plan, despite opportunities to do so, is itself a sufficient basis for terminating parental rights. In re G.S. , 10th Dist. No. 05AP-1321, 2006-Ohio-2530 , ¶ 15 . Accordingly, we find that there was clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's findings, under R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1), that James R. failed to remedy the conditions that caused Macey R. and Corey R. to be removed from the family home.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) requires a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time when clear and convincing evidence shows that the parent continuously and repeatedly failed to substantially remedy the conditions that caused the child's removal.

In Matter of Sherry S., E-08-019 (12-5-2008) · filed 2008-12-05(E)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 (E) provides that a court, in determining whether a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with a parent, shall consider all relevant evidence. R.C. 2151.414 (E) additionally provides that if the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that any one of 16 factors listed in the statute exist, the court must find that the child cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parent. Id. Those factors include: ... Accordingly, we find that there was clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's findings, under R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1), that Leroy S., Jr. and Tina S. failed to remedy the conditions that caused Carol S., Carmon S., Sherry S., and Leroy S., III to be removed from the family home.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) requires a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent when clear and convincing evidence shows that, despite agency services, the parent continuously and repeatedly failed to remedy the conditions that caused removal.

In re N.B. · filed 2011-05-04(E)(1)

The statute also indicates that if the court makes a finding under R.C. 2151.414(E) (1) – (15), the court shall determine the children cannot or should not be placed with the parent. A trial court may base its decision that a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with a parent upon the existence of any one of the R.C. 2151.414(E) factors. The existence of one factor alone will support a finding that the child cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable time. ... Ms. Holtel testified with respect to the steps FCCPS had taken to assist appellant and with respect to the lack of follow through appellant had exhibited with various aspects of her case plan. Specifically, appellant disappeared for significant periods of time, was not attending the vast majority of visits, did not obtain her own housing, did not attend any parenting classes, did not attend counseling or obtain drug treatment, did not comply with drug screens, and did not obtain adequate employment. ... Based upon the foregoing, as well as the entire record in this case, the Court properly found the child could not or should not be returned to the appellant-mother within a reasonable time. Despite offering numerous services, the appellant-mother was unable to mitigate the concerns that led to the child's removal.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) requires a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent when clear and convincing evidence shows that the parent continuously and repeatedly failed to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child’s out-of-home placement despite reasonable case planning and diligent agency efforts.

In re J.R. · filed 2011-05-27(E)(1)

Revised Code 2151.414(E) sets forth the factors a trial court must consider in determining whether a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time. ... We find that such findings are supported by the record. ... Based on the forgoing, we find that the trial court did not err in finding that appellant had failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing J.R. to be placed outside the home and that J.R. could not and should not be placed in appellant's home within a reasonable time.

Subsection (E)(1) supports a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent when, despite reasonable reunification efforts, the parent has failed substantially to remedy the conditions causing the child's out-of-home placement.

In re C.W. · filed 2011-09-21(E)(1)

Such a finding is mandatory when a court concludes that any one of several statutory factors applies to each parent. R.C. 2151.414(E). ... After considering competent, credible evidence, the trial court concluded that the factor in R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) applied to Williams because she had not substantially remedied the conditions causing the children to be placed outside her home despite reasonable efforts by HCJFS to reunify the family. See R.C. 2151.414(E)(1). ... Consequently, we hold that the trial court’s determination that C.W., J.W., and H.W., could not be placed with Williams within a reasonable time or should not be placed with her was based on competent, credible evidence.

Substantial compliance with a case plan does not preclude permanent custody under subsection (E)(1); the dispositive issue is whether the parent substantially remedied the conditions that caused the child's removal.

In re R.E.P. · filed 2011-10-14(E)(1)

Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(E) (1), a child may be permanently placed with the agency when, notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency, the parent or parents fail to remedy the problems that caused the removal of the child. ... Further, substantial compliance with a case plan, in and of itself, does not prove that a grant of permanent custody to an agency is erroneous. ... The dispositive issue is not whether the parent has substantially complied with the case plan, but rather, whether the parent has substantially remedied the conditions that caused the child's removal.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) treats a case plan as a means to remedy the conditions causing removal, so completing plan requirements alone is insufficient when the parent makes no progress on those conditions.

In re Jo.S. · filed 2011-11-21(E)(1)

In particular, the trial court found that CPSU had proven the existence of R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) by clear and convincing evidence. ... Although Tracy routinely attended counseling associated with the second objective, the successful completion of counseling or any other aspect of a case plan is not enough. A parent can successfully complete the requirements of a case plan, but not substantially remedy the conditions that caused the children to be removed, as the case plan is “simply a means to a goal, but not the goal itself.” ... Consequently, the fact that Tracy attended all of the counseling associated with the second objective is immaterial where the record demonstrates that Tracy made no progress in remedying the reasons for the children’s removal.

A parent may fail to substantially remedy the conditions that caused a child's removal even after participating in the case plan and completing most or all of its requirements.

In re A.L. · filed 2012-02-08(E)(1)

However, even where a parent has participated in his or her case plan and completed most or all of the plan requirements, a trial court may still properly determine that such parent has not substantially remedied the problems leading to agency involvement.

A court may find that a child cannot or should not be placed with the parents when, despite their use of services and consistent work on case plans, they repeatedly fail to sustain progress in remedying the conditions that caused removal.

In re K.C. · filed 2012-03-26(E)(1)

In determining whether a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with the parents, a trial court is to consider the existence of one or more factors under R.C. 2151.414(E), including whether or not “[f]ollowing the placement of the child outside the child's home and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the child's home. In determining whether the parents have substantially remedied those conditions, the court shall consider parental utilization of medical, psychiatric, psychological, and other social and rehabilitative services and material resources that were made available to the parents for the purpose of changing parental conduct to allow them to resume and maintain parental duties.” See R.C. 2151.414(E)(1). ... We note that there was extensive testimony that, while appellants utilized the numerous and continuous services that were provided to them over an extended period of time and had consistently worked on their case plans, they were unable to maintain any progress that they had made for a significant period of time and regressed once services were removed or limited.

Subsection (E)(1) supports a finding that a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time when, despite reasonable agency efforts, the parent fails to substantially remedy the conditions causing removal, including unstable housing and employment, continued drug use, incomplete services, unresolved domestic-violence concerns, and conduct harmful to the child's health.

In re R.T. · filed 2013-03-18(E)(1)

A review of the record supports the trial court's decision that the child cannot be placed with appellant within a reasonable time and that the agency provided reasonable case planning and diligent efforts to assist appellant to remedy the problems that caused the child to be removed. As is stated above, there was testimony that appellant had lost her housing in March of 2012, claimed that she was living with her father, and then refused to give the agency her address. As a result, the agency was unable to determine if the housing was appropriate for R.T., Jr. In addition, appellant lacked stable employment throughout the case. While there was testimony that appellant obtained part-time employment in September of 2012, there was testimony that she had one other short term period of employment during pendency of the case. Moreover, appellant failed to attend Well Child appointments as required and had tested positive for marijuana on May 14, 2012 and October of 2012. In addition, appellant did not complete at Quest and dropped out of Renew with three or four sessions to go. As noted by the trial court in its decision, there were also was continuing concerns about appellant’s ongoing relationship with R.T., which had been violent in the past. Furthermore, the trial court voiced concerns over appellant’s smoking in the home while knowing that R.T., Jr. had asthma.

A parent's minimal implementation of a case plan, denial of responsibility for the conditions that caused removal, and repeated refusal to permit the agency to assess the home can support a finding under § 2151.414(E)(1) that the parent failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy those conditions.

In re S.J. · filed 2013-03-18(E)(1)

R.C. 2151.414(E) sets out the factors relevant to determining permanent custody. Said section states in pertinent part as follows: ... “(1) Following the placement of the child outside the child's home and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the child's home. In determining whether the parents have substantially remedied those conditions, the court shall consider parental utilization of medical, psychiatric, psychological, and other social and rehabilitative services and material resources that were made available to the parents for the purpose of changing parental conduct to allow them to resume and maintain parental duties….” ... In the case sub judice, the trial court found that the children could not and should not be placed with either appellant within a reasonable period of time and that appellants had ‘failed continually and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing removal.” ... Appellants denied that their children were significantly educationally delayed and refused to accept any responsibility for the delay. While appellant H.J. claimed that she had home schooled the children, there were no records supporting her assertion. In addition, because appellant refused Fisher admittance to the house on a number of occasions, Fisher was unable to ensure that the house was clean and sanitary. As noted by the trial court in its decision, “[o]verall, case plan compliance and implements by the parents has been minimal….It is clear that neither parent rectified the parental deficits that caused these children to be removed from their parents.” ... Upon our review of the evidence, we find sufficient clear and convincing evidence to establish that the children could not be placed with appellants within a reasonable time.