Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2151.414

Under § 2151.414(E)(1), a parent's cocaine relapses and theft after treatment may provide clear and convincing evidence that the parent failed to remedy the conditions causing removal within a reasonable time.

In re D.H. · filed 2013-03-22(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. ... A year had passed since the filing of the complaint and despite appellant's six months of inpatient and outpatient sobriety, she relapsed two times with cocaine and committed a theft offense. We find the trial court's decision on reasonable time to complete the case plan was based on clear and convincing evidence.

Under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), a parent's continuous and repeated failure to substantially remedy the conditions that caused an out-of-home placement, despite reasonable case planning and diligent agency efforts, supports a finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with the parent within a reasonable time, and one statutory factor is sufficient.

In re J.N.H. · filed 2013-05-02(E)(1)

In addition, R.C. 2151.414(E) sets forth the elements necessary to satisfy an R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) determination, by clear and convincing evidence, that the child cannot or should not be placed with his parents within a reasonable time, and provides in relevant part: (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. ... The existence of one factor alone will support a finding that the child cannot be reunified with the parents within a reasonable time. ... In this case, the trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence that the children have been in the temporary custody for over two years, and that they cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with either parent. The court met the requirements of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) and R.C. 2151.414(E). In relevant part, the court noted that appellant has child endangering convictions, has not completed case plan services, continued to display inappropriate parenting, and has failed to demonstrate sobriety. This finding is properly supported by the clear and convincing evidence of record, and the mother did not present any evidence to refute this evidence.

Substantial compliance with case-plan requirements does not satisfy § 2151.414(E)(1) unless the parent substantially remedies the conditions that caused the child to be placed outside the home.

In re N.G. · filed 2013-06-26(E)(1)

The evidence shows Appellant-Mother substantially complied with the case plan requirements, but the statute provides that she substantially remedy the conditions that caused her children to be placed outside of the 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, despite reasonable agency efforts, the parent continuously and repeatedly failed to substantially remedy the conditions that caused the child's removal.

In re R.H. · filed 2013-08-22(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. ... A review of the record, as well as the trial court’s lengthy and detailed findings of fact, supports the trial court's decision that R.H. could not and should not be placed with appellant within a reasonable time. ... In short, we find that the trial court did not err in finding that R.H. could not and should not be placed with appellant within a reasonable time.

Under § 2151.414(E)(1), years of agency assistance without sustained remediation can constitute clear and convincing evidence of the failure-to-remedy factor.

In re G.W. · filed 2013-08-05(E)(1)

... The Agency worked with Wright for several years before removing G.W. and continued to work with her afterward. Thus, there was clear and convincing evidence as to the first factor under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1).

Subsection (E)(1) supports a cannot-be-placed finding when an agency made reasonable efforts but the parent remained noncompliant and failed to remedy the parenting conditions that caused removal.

In re H.F. · filed 2014-01-30(E)(1)

R.C. 2151.414(E) sets out the factors relevant to determining permanent custody. ... We concur with the trial court's assessment that reasonable efforts have been made by appellee, but appellant was non-compliant. We find clear and convincing evidence that the children are in need of permanent stable placement. ... Upon review, we find the trial court did not err in granting permanent custody of the children to appellee.

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

In re J.C. · filed 2013-09-13(E)(1)

Here the trial court made the findings required to award MCCS permanent custody. With regard to both children, the trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that they could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time and that an award of permanent custody was in the children’s best interest. We see no error in these determinations, which enjoy ample evidentiary support.

Substantial compliance with case-plan requirements does not satisfy subsection (E)(1) unless the parent substantially remedies the conditions that caused the child's out-of-home placement.

In re F.I. · filed 2014-05-29(E)(1)

The evidence shows Mother substantially complied with the case plan requirements, but the statute provides that she substantially remedy the conditions that caused her child to be placed outside of the home. Mother has attended parenting classes and is compliant with court orders, but she is admittedly unprepared, and unwilling, to deal with J.I.’s substantial medical needs.

A parent's failure to substantially remedy any of the problems that led to the child's removal supports the first prong of the permanent-custody test under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1).

In re A.S. · filed 2014-06-09(E)(1)

The evidence before the trial court overwhelmingly demonstrated that the parents had failed to substantially remedy any of the problems that led to A.S.’s removal from their home. Consequently, the trial court did not err in finding LCCS had established the first prong of the permanent custody test under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1).

Substantial compliance with case-plan requirements does not satisfy R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) unless the parent substantially remedies the conditions that caused the child's out-of-home placement.

In re J.W. · filed 2014-06-26(E)(1)

Mother argues she substantially complied with case plan services and almost completed SRCCC, which she describes as “intensive inpatient treatment.” While evidence does show Mother substantially complied with the case plan requirements, the statute provides she must substantially remedy the conditions that caused her child to be placed outside of the home. We are compelled to find Mother’s cycle of treatment and relapse still poses a high risk to the safety and stability of J.W.

Surface-level completion of case-plan services does not preclude a finding under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) when the parent has not internalized changed behavior and the evidence shows that domestic-violence, housing, and credibility concerns remain.

In re E.S. · filed 2014-07-10(E)(1)

The trial court explained that although Ze.S. completed some aspects of his case plan “‘on the surface,’” it was concerned that Ze.S. had “not internalized any changed behavior.” The court perceived that Ze.S. was in denial of J.S.’s long-time alcohol and drug abuse; that he blamed “the ‘system’”; that Ze.S. had abused J.S. to the point that she fled South Carolina and obtained a CPO against him; that even after completing the domestic violence program, he was alleged to have beaten J.S.; that he relied on J.S.’s parents for housing and given the volatility of the relationship among them, their housing situation was unstable; that Ze.S. was dishonest in his claim that he would leave J.S. if she did not stop abusing drugs and alcohol; and that it was made clear to Ze.S. that by entering into a joint case plan with J.S., reunification was dependent on both of them completing the case plan. ... We find that there was competent, credible evidence to support the court’s conclusions.

A parent's belated participation in court-ordered substance-abuse treatment does not defeat a failure-to-remedy finding when the parent spent most of the case denying the problem and continued to relapse.

In re N.H. · filed 2014-09-11(E)(1)

Consequently, we do not agree with appellant that clear and convincing evidence fails to support the trial court’s finding that appellant failed to continuously and substantially remedy the conditions that led to the child’s removal.

A parent fails to substantially remedy a drug condition under subsection (E)(1) when she does not comply with required screening, counseling, and sobriety measures despite completing other case-plan components.

In re K.S. · filed 2014-09-24(E)(1)

Consequently, there was clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that Mother had failed to substantially remedy the drug problem that caused the ongoing removal of her children from her home. See R.C. 2151.414(E)(1).

A parent who remains homeless, has not begun newly obtained employment, depends on others for transportation, lies about drug use, and tests positive for marijuana has not remedied the placement conditions under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), even when only post-placement conduct is considered.

In re S.B. · filed 2014-10-24(E)(1)

At the April 1, 2014 hearing, while Mother indicated that she had obtained employment, she had yet to work her first day, she was dependent upon a friend for transportation, she was homeless, and she lied to the court about her drug usage, subsequently testing positive for marijuana. As noted above, as to G.M.B., the court correctly concluded that he abandoned S.B. For the foregoing reasons, we cannot conclude that the “court applied the wrong ‘start date’” or erred in determining that the children could not be placed with Mother or G.M.B. within a reasonable time.

A parent cannot defeat an R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) failure-to-remedy finding by citing compliance with one aspect of a case plan while ignoring numerous other requirements the parent failed or disregarded.

In re A.R. · filed 2014-12-05(E)(1)

Appellant cannot establish an abuse of discretion by simply citing one aspect of the case plan while ignoring the many requirements of the plan that she failed or disregarded. Appellant has not established any error on the part of the trial court.

Failure to secure adequate housing and verified employment, complete drug treatment, and maintain sobriety can support a finding that a child cannot or should not be returned within a reasonable time.

In re K.M. · filed 2014-12-31(E)(1)

The parents failed to comply with their case plans, despite evidence that MCCS made appropriate referrals for both of them. They did not have adequate housing. E.M. was not employed. Her source of income is donating blood. While C.T. claimed that he did secure employment, he failed to provide any verification thereof. Furthermore, E.M. failed to complete her drug treatment or to maintain sobriety. Also, while there is no evidence that C.T. is a chronic marijuana user, the fact that he tested positive for marijuana just two months prior to the hearing is evidence that the trial court could consider.

A parent's failure to pursue substance-abuse treatment, submit to required drug screens, or obtain mental-health counseling supports a finding that reunification is not possible within a reasonable time under Section 2151.414(E)(1).

In re B.C. · filed 2015-01-21(E)(1)

The undisputed facts substantiate the trial court's approval and adoption of the magistrate's decision finding that reunification with appellant was not possible after a reasonable amount of time pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(E)(1).

A failure-to-remedy finding may rest on testimony from caseworkers and counselors who worked with the parent and children over an extended period.

In re Ky'J.C. · filed 2014-10-22(E)(1)

The record reflects that numerous caseworkers and counselors, all of whom spent a significant amount of time with appellant and the children for over two years, testified that mother had failed to remedy the conditions that initially required removal of the children from the home.

Completion of substance-abuse and domestic-violence programs does not establish that the conditions causing removal were remedied when the parent relapses and resumes a relationship associated with domestic violence and drug use.

In re Q.G. · filed 2015-01-02(E)(1)

Appellant returned to treatment at Unison in April 2014, but in May 2014, she tested positive again for marijuana and alcohol. Appellant then unsuccessfully discharged from the program and was not in any other substance abuse or mental health program.

Partial case-plan compliance does not preclude a failure-to-remedy finding when the parents remain unable to provide the children necessary care and protection after reasonable and diligent agency assistance.

In re J.B. · filed 2015-02-06(E)(1)

We have thoroughly reviewed the trial court record and find there is competent, credible proof which supports the trial court findings, under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), by clear and convincing evidence, that despite the reasonable and diligent efforts of appellee in assisting appellants to remedy the problems that initially caused the children to be removed from the home, the conditions which caused the pattern of substantial and continuous neglect of J.B., A.P., T.P. and C.P. while in appellants’ home, leading to the children’s removal, have not been remedied so as to give the children the necessary parental care and protection.

A failure-to-remedy finding may be supported by competent, credible evidence that the parent remains unable to resolve the problems that caused the children's removal.

In re M.B. · filed 2015-08-24(E)(1)

As set forth in our Statement of the Facts and Case, supra, we find there was competent, credible evidence Mother failed to remedy the problems which caused the removal of the minor children from the home.

Parents who stop case-plan services and relapse on the drug problem that caused removal fail to substantially remedy the removal conditions under Section 2151.414(E)(1).

In re Na.S. · filed 2015-10-28(E)(1)

Given the unrefuted testimony of Flowers regarding A.S. and S.S.’s failure to complete their case plan services, as well as the fact that the parents have relapsed on ... heroin, the issue that caused the children to be removed from the home in the first place, we find that A.S. and S.S. failed to substantially remedy the conditions that led to the removal of the children despite reasonable case planning designed to help them do so.

Completing parenting classes and attending visitation do not establish case-plan compliance when the parent cannot demonstrate the learned skills and still needs constant monitoring and redirection during visits.

In re B.S. · filed 2015-11-23(E)(1)

While everyone agrees that Rebecca completed her parenting classes and regularly attended her visitation, the only testimony presented was that Rebecca did not demonstrate what she had learned in those classes and that she had to constantly be monitored and redirected as to how to care for B.S. in the visitation she did exercise.

Completing case-plan requirements does not necessarily establish compliance with or benefit from the services when the parents continue to deny abuse and accept no responsibility for the condition causing removal.

In re Mosley Children · filed 2015-12-08(E)(1)

The fact Parents completed the requirements of their case plans does not necessarily equate to Parents’ complying with or benefiting from those services.

A parent's inability to mitigate the concerns that caused removal despite numerous offered services supports a cannot-or-should-not-be-returned finding.

In re Q.G. · filed 2016-03-21(E)(1)

Despite offering numerous services, Father was unable to mitigate the concerns that led to the child's removal.

Setbacks caused by an unexpected injury and limited means do not establish continuous failure to remedy when the parent promptly finds new work and diligently pursues safe housing.

In re A.E. · filed 2016-03-31(E)(1)

While we recognize and agree with the trial court’s objective of establishing permanence for the children, the setbacks K.J. experienced in her search for stable housing do not appear to have been caused by any unwillingness or lack of effort on K.J.’s part.

A parent fails to substantially remedy unsafe living conditions when she continues relying for basic needs on people she accused of sexually abusing her or her child and cannot protect the child without their assistance.

In re R.S. · filed 2016-04-11(E)(1)

Therefore, the evidence fully supports the trial court finding that Mother has not remedied the conditions that caused the removal of the child from the home. By the time of the permanent custody hearing, Mother still had not demonstrated that she could provide a safe, stable living situation for herself and her daughter. She has continued to rely on Grandfather and Jason B., two men she accused of being sexually abusive of her and her daughter, for the financial support of her basic needs.

Failure to remedy the issues that caused removal supports a finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with the parent within a reasonable time.

In re C.H. · filed 2016-08-01(E)(1)

For these reasons, we find that the trial court’s determination that Mother had failed to remedy the issues that caused the initial removal and therefore the child could not be placed with her within a reasonable time or should not be placed with her was based upon competent credible evidence and is not against the manifest weight or sufficiency of the evidence.

A finding under § 2151.414(E)(1) must rest on clear and convincing evidence that the parent failed to remedy the removal conditions after the child was placed outside the home; pre-removal failures alone do not satisfy the provision.

In re A.T. · filed 2016-09-21(E)(1)

To make a finding under the explicit language of R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), the trial court was required to find clear and convincing evidence that the parents failed to remedy the conditions that caused the children’s removal “following” their placement outside the home. ... Although the parents’ lack of case plan progress before the children were removed demonstrate some of the “conditions” that caused the children’s removal, those facts did not demonstrate that the parents had “failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy” those conditions “[f]ollowing the placement of the child[ren] outside [their] home[.]”

A parent may fail to substantially remedy removal conditions under § 2151.414(E)(1) when, despite reasonable agency planning and diligent efforts, the parent remains unable to maintain stable housing, employment, and a safe environment meeting the children's basic needs.

In re K.T. · filed 2016-10-17(E)(1)

The trial court found that the parents have not demonstrated that they have been able to obtain and maintain stable housing, employment, or a safe and secure environment from which they can provide for the basic needs of their children on a long-term basis. Upon review, this Court concludes that the trial court did not clearly lose its way and create a manifest miscarriage of justice when it found that notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency, Mother failed to substantially remedy the conditions that caused the children to be placed outside the home. ... As a result, the children could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with a parent.

Parents fail to substantially remedy removal conditions under § 2151.414(E)(1) when they have not adequately addressed long-term heroin addiction, domestic violence, and resulting instability despite the agency's case-planning services.

In re Z.F. · filed 2016-10-26(E)(1)

The trial court heard undisputed evidence that neither parent had adequately addressed their long-term heroin addiction, problems with domestic violence, or other instability in their lives. Consequently, the evidence before the trial court clearly and convincingly demonstrated that Father and Mother had “failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child[ren] to be placed outside [their] home.” R.C. 2151.414(E)(1).

Under Section 2151.414(E)(1), the dispositive issue is whether the parent substantially remedied the conditions leading to removal, not whether the parent substantially complied with the case plan.

In re M. · filed 2017-04-19(E)(1)

The dispositive issue is not whether the parent has substantially complied with the case plan, but whether the parent has substantially remedied the conditions that led to the child’s removal. C.E. 1, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-140674, 2015-Ohio-5710, at ¶ 20.

Clear and convincing evidence of a parent's failure to complete recommended treatment or engage in required services can support a finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with that parent within a reasonable time.

In re Kh.M. · filed 2017-11-27(E)(1), (E)(4)

In light of the foregoing, we find that the juvenile court’s determination that the children could not or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time under R.C. 2151.414(E) was supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Once clear and convincing evidence establishes subsection (E)(1)'s failure-to-remedy factor, the trial court must find that the child cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable time.

In re S.L. · filed 2018-03-12(E)(1)

Given the evidence before it, this finding of the trial court was supported by clear and convincing evidence. Having made those findings pursuant to R.C. ... 2151.414(E)(1), the trial court was required to find that the children could not be placed with Foreman within a reasonable time.

A parent's continued failure to engage in drug treatment, regular testing, or mental-health stabilization can establish failure to substantially remedy the conditions causing removal under subsection (E)(1).

In re A.H. · filed 2018-03-21(E)(1)

Throughout this case, Mother failed to engage in drug treatment or submit to regular drug testing. When she did provide samples for drug testing, they often tested positive for opiates. She made no progress toward stabilizing her mental health, but instead also continued to exhibit irrational and self-harming behavior. The evidence before the trial court overwhelmingly supported its conclusion that Mother had failed to substantially remedy the conditions that caused her children to be removed and remain placed outside her home.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) is satisfied when, despite years of offered services, a parent continuously and repeatedly fails to substantially remedy the conditions preventing reunification.

In re E.W. · filed 2018-07-20(E)(1)

Specifically, the trial court in this matter determined pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) that appellant, “failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions.” We concur. ... The record encompasses ample clear and convincing evidence reflecting that appellant failed to substantially remedy the conditions.

A parent's failure to participate in recommended mental-health, parenting, housing, and employment services can establish a continuous and repeated failure to remedy the conditions causing removal under subsection (E)(1).

In re J.W. · filed 2019-01-23(E)(1)

Based on clear and convincing evidence establishing ongoing concerns about Mother’s ability to provide a nurturing, safe, and healthy environment for the children, notwithstanding the agency’s reasonable case planning and diligent efforts, Mother failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions which caused the children to be placed outside of Mother’s home.

Failure to obtain stable housing and employment may support a finding that the parent failed to substantially comply with the case plan and remedy the conditions causing removal.

In re R.G. · filed 2019-02-15(E)(1)

The juvenile court found that Mother had failed to substantially comply with the terms of her case plan because she had not obtained stable housing and employment. We conclude that this finding was supported by the record.

Failure to comply with case-plan services can support findings under divisions (E)(1) and (E)(4).

In re K.J. · filed 2019-05-17(E)(1), (E)(4)

Having reviewed the record in its entirety, we find that the juvenile court’s findings under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) and (E)(4) concerning appellant’s failure to comply with her case plan services are supported by the evidence adduced at the hearing on LCCS’s motion for permanent custody.

A parent's failure to substantially remedy the conditions that caused a child's removal supports a first-prong finding under subsection (E)(1).

In re J.J. · filed 2019-06-03(E)(1)

The trial court found that MCJFS established the first prong of the permanent custody test for several alternative reasons, including that Mother had failed to substantially remedy the conditions that caused J.J. to be placed outside the home. See R.C. 2151.414(E)(1). Mother does not challenge that finding, which is fully supported by the record.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) supports a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent who, despite agency efforts, makes minimal case-plan efforts and fails to address substance abuse, mental health, housing, employment, and financial stability.

In re T.C. · filed 2019-07-25(E)(1)

We find appellee presented sufficient competent, credible evidence to demonstrate that T.C. cannot or should not be placed with Mother, as notwithstanding reasonable efforts on behalf of the Agency, Mother failed to remedy the problems that initially caused the removal of T.C. from his home.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) supports a reasonable-time placement finding when a parent has had a year to obtain safe, sanitary, stable housing but delays repairs until after the agency seeks permanent custody.

In re I.B. · filed 2019-08-26(E)(1)

But father regained possession of the home in 2016. Then, following the opening of the instant case, father had a full year to obtain safe, sanitary, stable housing for himself and I.B. He failed to make any move to make the marital home inhabitable until a year after TCJFS filed its motion for permanent custody. ... Thus we find the trial court's finding that I.B. could not be placed with father in reasonable time despite the efforts of TCJFS is supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) supports permanent custody when a parent engages in treatment but fails to incorporate it into daily life and remains unable to remedy the addiction that caused removal.

In re X.M. · filed 2019-12-16(E)(1)

Although she went through the motions of engaging in treatment, she has failed to incorporate her treatment into her daily life. X.M. and M.I. require legally secure placement. Mother's addiction issues prevent reunification despite the best efforts of the agency.

Division (E)(1)'s failure-to-remedy ground is not established when the record does not show reasonable agency planning and diligent efforts and the parent was not given enough opportunity for reunification.

In re R.G. · filed 2020-02-06(E)(1)

Turning next to the question of whether the CCDCFS used reasonable planning and diligent efforts to assist Mother in remedying the problems causing placement of the child outside of the home, the record clearly demonstrated that Mother had difficulty in traveling to R.G. due to his placement in Ashland. However, the court did not inquire as to whether a suitable foster care option ever became available closer to Mother’s home.

Subsection (E)(1)'s cannot-or-should-not-be-placed finding is supported when clear and convincing evidence shows that, despite reasonable agency efforts, the parent continuously failed to remedy the removal conditions.

In re A.H. · filed 2020-04-08(E)(1)

CSB established by clear and convincing evidence that, despite the agency’s reasonable and diligent efforts, Mother failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions that caused the removal of A.H. and J.H. from home.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) supports a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with parents who fail to remedy the problems that caused removal despite reasonable case planning and agency efforts.

In re R.S. · filed 2020-09-22(E)(1)

As evidenced by our facts above, we find the State presented sufficient competent, credible evidence to demonstrate R.S. cannot or should not be placed with Appellant or Jennifer D. as they have failed to remedy the problems that initially caused the removal of R.S.

A parent's failure to begin addressing any of the problems that caused removal can establish the failure-to-remedy ground for permanent custody.

In re K.C. · filed 2021-07-21(E)(1)

Therefore, the trial court did not lose its way by concluding that CSB established the first prong of the permanent custody test because Mother “failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions” that caused K.C. and K.C. to remain placed outside the home. R.C. 2151.414(E)(1).

A parent's failure to address acknowledged trauma tied to excessive discipline, combined with inconsistent agency communication and visitation, can establish failure to remedy and lack of commitment.

In re I.R. · filed 2021-09-09(E)(1), (E)(4)

Following careful consideration of the testimony presented at the permanent custody hearing, we find that competent, credible, clear and convincing evidence supports the juvenile court’s findings that (1) the agency made reasonable efforts to make it possible for I.R. to return to Father’s custody, (2) “notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems” that caused I.R. to be placed outside the home, Father has failed “continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions” causing I.R. to be placed outside the home and (3) Father “has 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.” Accordingly, the trial court did not err in committing I.R. to the permanent custody of CCDCFS.

Parents' failure to use available services or develop insight into the problems preventing a safe home supports a finding that they failed to remedy the conditions causing removal.

In re L.F. · filed 2021-09-29(B)(1)(a), (E)(1)

In the more than 18 months from the adoption of the case plan until the permanent custody hearing, neither parent took advantage of available services geared toward addressing their issues. Moreover, neither Mother nor Father developed any insight into the problems that prevented them from being able to provide a safe and stable home for L.F.

Pandemic-related limits on services do not preclude a failure-to-remedy finding when case-plan services remained available and the parent did not attend scheduled assessments.

In re G.W. · filed 2021-09-29(E)(1)

According to the undisputed evidence at the hearing, although there were some limitations on services and visits caused by Covid-19 health restrictions, case plan services were available to Mother throughout the pandemic. Mother scheduled some appointments for assessments with service providers but never followed though by attending the appointments.

A parent’s continued substance abuse despite agency referrals, transportation offers, and remote treatment opportunities can establish failure to remedy under subsection (E)(1).

In re P.H. · filed 2021-10-20(B)(1)(a), (E)(1)

{¶24} Based on a thorough review of the record, this is not the exceptional case in which the trier of fact clearly lost its way and committed a manifest miscarriage of justice by terminating the parents’ parental rights and awarding permanent custody of P.H. to CSB. The child’s paternity was never established, and no alleged father pursued any type of relationship with the child or attempted to demonstrate that he could provide for her basic needs. Mother never addressed her substance abuse issues and continued to use methamphetamine throughout the case despite the agency’s referrals for substance abuse treatment and offers to provide transportation, as well as the opportunity to participate remotely in counseling. Mother had no housing or ability to meet the basic needs of the child. Under these circumstances, CSB established by clear and convincing evidence that an award of permanent custody was in the best interest of the child. Accordingly, the juvenile court’s judgment terminating Mother’s and any father’s parental rights and placing P.H. in the permanent custody of the agency was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Subsection (E)(1) considers only a parent's reunification efforts after the children are removed in the current case, not conduct in prior closed cases.

In re Q.C. · filed 2021-11-10(E)(1)

This Court agrees that Section 2151.414(E)(1) applies only to the reunification efforts of a parent after the children are removed from the home in the current case. ... The trial court explicitly considered improper evidence from prior cases to determine that Mother had failed consistently and repeatedly to remedy her parenting problems in this case. We agree with Mother that the trial court erred in considering that evidence to establish a first-prong finding under Section 2151.414(E)(1).

A parent's unstable housing and employment, inconsistent mental-health treatment, and refusal of drug testing can support a finding that the parent failed to remedy the conditions causing removal.

In re N.M. · filed 2021-12-08(E)(1)

The record reflects that, while mother did complete parenting class and was consistent with visitation, mother failed to keep consistent and stable housing and employment. Additionally, while mother did complete a mental-health assessment, she failed to stay consistent with the recommended therapy. ... Therefore, clear and convincing evidence existed in the record to support the trial court’s finding that B.C. could not and should not be placed with mother within a reasonable time.

Parents receive a reasonable rather than indefinite period to remedy unsafe conditions before the legally-secure-placement factor may support permanent custody.

In re M.H. · filed 2022-01-10(D)(1)(d)

As this court has previously stated, parents are "afforded a reasonable, not an indefinite, period of time to remedy the conditions causing the children's removal."

Untreated mental-health problems and an inability to provide basic needs may clearly and convincingly establish failure to remedy the conditions causing removal.

In re L.T. · filed 2022-01-19(E)(1)

This Court concludes that CSB proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mother failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions that led to L.T.’s removal. See R.C. 2151.414(E)(1).

The agency need not show that a parent failed every case-plan goal; subsection (E)(1) asks whether the parent substantially remedied the conditions causing removal.

In re N.B. · filed 2022-04-22(E)(1)

Mother contends that she had “made progress on her case plan sufficient to have her children returned” (Appellant’s Brief, p. 6), but neither the Revised Code nor relevant precedent require that SCDJFS establish that a parent failed to achieve any goals before seeking permanent custody. Instead, the Revised Code focuses on whether the parent has substantially remedied the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the home.

Failure to use available substance-abuse services may clearly and convincingly establish continuous failure to remedy the conditions causing removal.

In re A.B. · filed 2022-05-16(E)(1)

This Court concludes that CSB proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mother failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions that led to the children’s removal. See R.C. 2151.414(E)(1).

Repeated failure to complete referred drug counseling and treatment supports a failure-to-remedy finding.

In re L.H. · filed 2022-09-16(E)(1)

Here, the record demonstrates that despite mother’s consistent referral to drug counseling and treatment, she has continuously and repeatedly failed to successfully complete any of those services, oftentimes being discharged for noncompliance. Therefore, we hold that the trial court’s determination under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Housing instability, domestic violence, mental-health problems, and substance abuse that remain unresolved can establish subsection (E)(1)'s failure-to-remedy ground.

In re S.C. · filed 2022-11-16(E)(1)

This Court concludes that CSB proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mother and Father failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions that led to the children’s removal. See R.C. 2151.414(E)(1). The agency removed the children from the parents’ home based on housing instability, violence in the home, and both parents’ mental health and substance abuse issues.

Failure to complete case plans, obtain stable housing, and resolve the conditions causing removal supports finding that children cannot or should not be placed with either parent.

In re K.A. · filed 2022-11-30(B)(1)(a)

The parents failed to significantly complete their respective case plans. Neither parent demonstrated that they had independent, stable housing at the time of the permanent-custody hearing. Mother continued to test positive for drugs. The problems that caused the children to be placed in HCJFS’s custody were not resolved.

Continued positive cocaine tests and interaction with another drug-using parent support a failure-to-remedy finding when drug use caused the removal.

In re E.V. · filed 2022-12-16(E)(1)

The issue which caused M.G.’s removal in this case was drug use, and father continued to test positive for cocaine throughout the pendency of this case and continued to interact with mother, who had a known issue with drug use. Therefore, we hold that the juvenile court’s finding under R.C. 2151.414(E) regarding M.G. was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) was satisfied where the parent refused domestic-violence services, tested positive for fentanyl shortly before trial, and completed some services without benefiting from them or changing his behavior.

In re Z.C. · filed 2023-05-04(E)(1)

The record shows that Father refused to engage in domestic violence services. ... He also tested positive for fentanyl shortly before trial. There was testimony that his conduct and behaviors had not changed in the last seven years. As observed by the GAL, “Completing services is the first step. Benefitting from those services and showing a change in behavior is another thing.”

Section 2151.414(E)(1) focuses on whether services achieved their intended effect of changing parental conduct, not merely whether the parent technically complied with the case plan.

In re C.S. · filed 2023-05-15(E)(1)

Mother’s focus on her technical compliance with her case plan services is misplaced. Indeed, under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), the crux of the analysis is not on the case plan services themselves, but on the desired effect of those services.

Section 2151.414(E)(1)'s failure-to-remedy factor was satisfied by continued domestic violence against minors, lack of visitation, and refusal to engage in services after a new domestic-violence offense.

In re J.B. · filed 2023-05-19(E)(1)

The record consistently reflects, through uncontroverted testimony, of appellant’s recurrence of domestic violence against minors, of appellant’s lack of visitation with the minor child, and of appellant’s refusal to engage in services after the latest domestic violence offense, that, “Following the placement of [J.B.] 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, [appellant] has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions.”

A parent's continuous failure to remedy the conditions that caused removal supports finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with that parent within a reasonable time.

In re L.A. · filed 2023-06-07(B)(1)(a), (E)(1)

Father does not dispute that he failed to remedy the conditions that caused L.A. to be placed outside the home, and the record fully supports the trial court’s finding. Father failed to engage in treatment to address his long-standing problems with domestic violence and illegal drug use, failed to obtain stable housing and income, and continued to violate the conditions of his post-release control on his most recent felony convictions.

Section 2151.414(E)(1)'s failure-to-remedy factor was satisfied where the parent still required at least six to nine months of substance-abuse treatment and had not established independent housing at the permanent-custody hearing.

In re J.T. · filed 2023-12-21(E)(1)

Accordingly, even if all of father’s substance-abuse treatment went as well as possible and father did not experience any additional relapses, father would not be ready to reunify with his children for at least six to nine months. ... Beyond the treatment father still required for his mental health and substance abuse issues, father also failed to establish he had independent housing as required by his case plan. ... Accordingly, the juvenile court’s finding under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) that father failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the children to be placed outside the children’s home is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Section 2151.414(E)(1)'s failure-to-remedy inquiry may encompass broader parenting and safety concerns implicated by the events causing removal, not merely whether the parent repeated the specific triggering incidents.

In re N.G. · filed 2023-12-27(E)(1)

While the specific incidents that gave rise to the agency’s involvement concerned Mother’s boyfriend shooting I.C. and Mother’s failure to seek immediate medical care for that child, those implicated broader concerns related to Mother’s ability to provide an appropriate home for her children in general. The case plan required Mother’s participation in various services designed to help her overcome the issues that interfered with her ability to prioritize her children’s needs.

Section 2151.414(E)(1)'s failure-to-remedy factor was supported where the parent denied access to his housing, was repeatedly jailed, provided no financial support or permanent home, missed visits, and failed to complete the case plan.

In re B.C. · filed 2023-12-29(E)(1)

Appellant-Father would not allow them access to his housing to permit them to make a determination as to safety and appropriateness. ... Appellant-Father was in and out of jail throughout the pendency of this matter and was therefore unable to provide a safe, permanent home for the child. ... Appellant-Father demonstrated a lack of commitment by failing to provide financial support or a permanent home. ... Appellant-Father failed to appear at the permanent custody hearing or any of the review hearings. Appellant-Father failed to attend the last two scheduled visitations with B.C. ... Appellant did not complete his case plan or reduce the risks that led to the involvement of the Agency in this case.

Section 2151.414(E)(1)'s failure-to-remedy factor may be established despite consistent participation in substance-abuse treatment when every available drug screen remains positive and the parent makes no progress toward sobriety.

In re P.W. · filed 2023-12-29(E)(1)

Despite Mother’s consistent efforts to participate in substance abuse treatment, she tested positive for methamphetamine use on every drug screen received by the agency. The caseworker testified that Mother was not compliant with her substance use case plan objective because she had made no progress toward achieving sobriety. ... Based on this Court’s review, CSB established by clear and convincing evidence that Mother had failed to remedy the concerns that led to the child’s removal from home.

Uncontroverted evidence of anger problems, refusal to complete drug screens, unapproved housing, and new criminal charges supports failure-to-remedy and lack-of-commitment findings.

In re A.J. · filed 2024-01-22(E)(1), (E)(4)

Appellant does not dispute the facts demonstrated by the evidence at trial, that he had anger issues, completed no drug screens, never had his housing approved, or was charged with new criminal offenses.

Section 2151.414(E)(1)'s failure-to-remedy finding may be supported when parents complete some services but do not benefit from them and continue the conduct those services were intended to address.

In re A.P. · filed 2024-04-04(E)(1)

The court heard that while Mother and Father A had completed some case-plan services during the pendency of the case, the court also heard that Green did not feel they had benefitted from those services based upon their actions. ... However, despite the case-plan services referred to them by CCDCFS, in June and July 2023, two domestic-violence incidents resulted in police involvement.

Section 2151.414(E)(1)'s failure-to-remedy factor was supported where the parent attended services without benefiting from them, continued aggressive behavior, failed substance-abuse services and drug screens, and lacked verifiably suitable housing.

In re T.H. · filed 2024-04-11(E)(1)

Father engaged in mental health, domestic violence, and anger management classes, but the record reflects that he did not benefit from the classes. ... Father also has not shown that he complied with the substance abuse component of his case plan. ... The agency was also unable to check Father’s house because, due to Father’s ... behavior, case workers were required to have a detective escort and as of the hearing date had not been able to arrange an escort. ... On this record, the weight of the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the trial court’s “failure to remedy” finding.

Section 2151.414(E)(1)'s failure-to-remedy finding was supported where the child was removed for substance-abuse concerns and the parent died without completing substance-abuse treatment.

In re J.D. · filed 2024-04-16(E)(1)

Contrary to N.O.’s assertion, testimony from the permanent custody hearing reveals that J.D. was removed from mother’s care because of substance abuse concerns. Mother then died without having completed her substance abuse treatment. Therefore, the trial court’s finding that J.D. could not be placed with mother within a reasonable time or should not be placed with mother is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Clear and convincing evidence that a parent failed to remedy the removal conditions supports finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with the parents within a reasonable time.

In re D.R. · filed 2024-06-24(B)(1)(a), (E)

As set forth in our Statement of the Facts and Case, supra, we find there was clear and convincing evidence Mother failed to remedy the problems which initially caused the removal of the Child from Parents’ home, and the Child cannot or should not be placed with Parents in a reasonable time.

Section 2151.414(E)(1)'s failure-to-remedy factor was supported where the parent remained in unstable and abusive relationships, was homeless between relationships, and refused assistance obtaining subsidized housing.

In re J.T. · filed 2024-07-03(E)(1)

Throughout the case’s pendency, Mother was in shifting, unstable relationships with different romantic partners, depending on each of them to provide housing for her. Indeed, Mother was homeless when she was between relationships. ... When an apartment became available, Mother failed the background ... check and refused Kennard’s assistance in negotiating with the housing provider to get the apartment. ... Accordingly, the juvenile court’s finding under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) that mother failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the children to be placed outside the children’s home is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Section 2151.414(E)(1)'s failure-to-remedy factor may rest on a parent's inability to learn and consistently perform the specialized care required by a medically complex child.

In re D.L.W. · filed 2024-08-09(E)(1)

In particular, the court focused on the following points: Mother’s struggle to care for D.L.W. and his special needs; Mother’s chronic short-term memory loss resulting from a prior drug overdose; D.L.W.’s very significant medical issues (including treatment by 12 specialists at Children’s Hospital and multiple appointments per week); Mother’s failure to attend many medical appointments, despite being informed of the visits and being given bus passes; Mother’s difficulty in coping with the child during visitation; and Mother’s failure, when visitation occurred at a relative’s home, to comply with requirements about feeding (which ... were important due to D.L.W.’s special needs).

Substantial progress on substance-abuse treatment does not defeat section 2151.414(E)(1) when the parent fails to meaningfully address other core objectives such as mental health, parenting skills, income, and appropriate housing.

In re A.G. · filed 2024-08-14(E)(1)

While Mother substantially complied with her substance abuse objective and did an admirable job of attaining and maintaining sobriety for an extended period of time, she did not address her other core objectives in a meaningful way. ... As the clear and convincing evidence showed that Mother had not addressed several significant concerns that prevented her from being able to provide a safe and stable home for the children, the juvenile court’s first-prong finding is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Failure to obtain safe, stable housing supports section 2151.414(E)(1)'s finding that a parent continuously and repeatedly failed to remedy the conditions causing removal.

In re F.W. · filed 2024-11-05(E)(1)

Appellant’s failure to secure adequate housing for the children supports a finding, under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), that he failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions that caused the children to be placed outside their home.

Section 2151.414(E)(1)'s failure-to-remedy factor was supported where a parent abandoned services and visitation for six months, failed parenting and updated assessments, and did not learn to meet a medically fragile child's needs.

In re H.G. · filed 2024-11-15(E)(1)

The Court finds that Father began this case with expressing a desire to at least attempt to work reunification but in November walked away and abandoned his child for six(6) months when his child needed him most. He could have learned about her, her needs and begin the long process of training to care for her. He did not elect this option. ... Upon review we find the juvenile court’s grant of appellee’s motion for permanent custody of H.G. was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the court did not clearly lose its way to create such a manifest miscarriage of justice as to require reversal of the judgment.

Minimal case-plan efforts do not defeat a failure-to-remedy finding when the parent continuously and repeatedly fails to correct the conditions causing removal.

In re A.W. · filed 2024-12-10(E)(1)

We find there is clear and convincing evidence that, while he made some minimal efforts to engage in the case plan, the appellant failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions that caused A.W. to be removed from the appellant’s home.

Successful completion of a case plan is not dispositive of reunification because the ultimate question is whether the parent substantially remedied the conditions that caused removal.

In re S.P. · filed 2025-03-06(E)(1)

A parent’s successful completion of the terms of a case plan is not dispositive on the issue of reunification, as the ultimate question under R.C. 2151.414 is whether the parent has substantially remedied the conditions that caused the child’s removal.

Successful completion of a case plan is not dispositive of reunification because the ultimate question is whether the parent substantially remedied the conditions that caused removal.

In re C.K. · filed 2025-03-06(E)(1)

A parent’s successful completion of the terms of a case plan is not dispositive on the issue of reunification, as the ultimate question under R.C. 2151.414 is whether the parent has substantially remedied the conditions that caused the child’s removal.

When permanent custody is sought as the initial disposition, an agency cannot satisfy subsection (E)(1) using a case plan from an earlier matter.

In re J.B. · filed 2025-06-18(E)(1)

But “‘a case plan relating to a prior matter cannot be used to satisfy [R.C. 2151.414(E)(1)] where the agency seeks permanent custody as the initial disposition.’”

Subsection (E)(1)'s removal conditions include both problems existing at initial removal and home-environment problems identified later that caused continued out-of-home placement.

In re B.C. · filed 2025-11-19(E)(1)

Instead, this Court has construed the operative language of R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) “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) permits a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent when, despite reasonable agency efforts, the parent repeatedly fails to remedy the conditions that caused removal.

In Re Archer, Unpublished Decision (6-7-2004) · filed 2004-06-07(E)(1)

First, the court found that following the placement of the children outside their home and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist Linda in remedying the problems that initially caused the children to be placed outside the home, she had failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the condition causing them to be placed outside of their home. See R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1). This finding was supported by clear and convincing evidence.

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 the parent fails to remedy the conditions causing removal despite the agency's reasonable efforts.

In Re Miller, Unpublished Decision (6-14-2004) · filed 2004-06-14(E)(1)

Thus, evidence was presented to the trial court from which it could find that Miller had failed to complete the case plan despite reasonable efforts by ACDJFS. Once this finding is made, the trial court is required by the statute to make a finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with the parent within a reasonable time.

Under subsection (E)(1), repeated failure to remedy unsafe home conditions can support a finding that a child cannot be placed with a parent, despite later progress on a case plan.

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

Among other things, the judge found, under R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1), that R.F. and, in the case of T.L., her father, W.L., had failed continuously and repeatedly to remedy the conditions that caused the children to be removed. ... CCDCFS witnesses admitted that the allegations of substance abuse were unproven, and R.F. is correct in stating that the evidence at the hearings showed that she had made progress on her case plan in the years 2002 and 2003. ... The evidence presented allows a reasonable inference that R.F. was unable to consistently provide a stable environment for her children, and the judge reasonably could find that clear and convincing evidence showed her inability to remedy the conditions that caused the removal of her children.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) requires clear and convincing evidence that a parent failed to substantially remedy the condition that caused the child’s removal.

In Re Rashaun B., Unpublished Decision (9-22-2004) · filed 2004-09-22(E)(1)

With respect to the R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) finding, appellee's caseworker testified that the reason the children were removed from the home was appellant's failure to administer breathing treatments when the children were ill. Despite this, there was absolutely no testimony as to whether appellant's completion of her case plan did or did not remedy this behavior. Since the burden is on appellee to provide clear and convincing evidence that appellant failed to substantially remedy the condition which caused the children to be removed from the home, we must conclude that appellee failed to meet its burden.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) supports a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent when, despite diligent agency efforts, the parent fails to use available services and substantially remedy the conditions that caused removal.

In Re S v. Unpublished Decision (10-13-2004) · filed 2004-10-13(E)(1)

There was ample evidence before the trial court to establish that CSB made diligent efforts to help Carla comply with the requirements of her case plan but that Carla failed to utilize the services available to her and failed to substantially remedy the conditions that led to the removal of her children from the home.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) addresses whether parents continuously and repeatedly failed for six months or more to substantially remedy the conditions that caused the child’s placement outside the home.

In Re C.S., Unpublished Decision (10-22-2004) · filed 2004-10-22(E)(1)

There is substantial evidence in this record to support the trial court's finding under R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) that both parents of C.S. failed continuously and repeatedly for six months or more to substantially remedy the conditions causing C.S. to be placed outside his home.

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

In re J.H. · filed 2022-11-23(E)(1)

Under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), the trial court found that Mother “has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the child’s home.” We find that the evidence clearly and convincingly supports this.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) requires a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent when clear and convincing evidence establishes that the parents repeatedly failed to substantially remedy the conditions that caused removal.

Matter of Smith, Unpublished Decision (9-29-1999) · filed 1999-09-29(E)(1)

With respect to R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1), the record demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, that the twins' parents have failed to "substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the child's home."

Section 2151.414(E)(1) supports a finding that children 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 their removal.

In re A.J. · filed 2014-08-26(E)(1)

The record shows by clear and convincing evidence that LCDJFS has diligently assisted Father to remedy the conditions that caused the children to be removed from his home, but Father continued to struggle to meet the special needs of A.J. and B.J.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) permits a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent when clear and convincing evidence shows the parent failed to substantially remedy the conditions that kept the child outside the home.

In re C.F. · filed 2017-02-01(E)(1)

Consequently, there was clear and convincing evidence before the trial court to support its conclusion that Mother had failed to substantially remedy the conditions that caused her children to be removed from her custody and remain placed outside her home.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) allows a finding that a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time when the parent fails to remedy the conditions that led to removal despite agency assistance.

In re R.R. · filed 2021-05-10(E)(1)

We conclude that the record in this case supports the trial court’s conclusion with respect to its findings that R.R. cannot be placed with Mother within a reasonable time or should not be placed with Mother. The record reveals that the primary concerns were Mother’s mental health and substance abuse. The record established that the Agency provided ample resources and case planning to help Mother overcome these obstacles in order for her to be reunified with R.R., but Mother failed to consistently put forth the effort to achieve these objectives to remedy the conditions causing R.R. to be placed outside her home.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) permits a finding that a child cannot or should not be returned to a parent when the parent has failed to remedy the conditions that caused the child's removal.

In re M.S. · filed 2012-11-21(E)(1)

Given the overwhelming and undisputed evidence before the trial court, it reasonably concluded that Mother and Father had failed to remedy the circumstances that had caused the continued removal of M.S. from their custody and that, consequently, M.S. could not be returned to their home within a reasonable time or should not be returned there.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) permits a finding that a child cannot or should not be returned to a parent when clear and convincing evidence shows the parent failed to substantially remedy the conditions that caused removal.

In re S.C. · filed 2014-11-19(E)(1)

This Court’s review of the record reveals that the trial court had clear and convincing evidence before it to demonstrate that Mother had failed to substantially remedy the conditions that caused S.C. to be placed outside her home. See R.C. 2151.414(E)(1).

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

In re N.L. · filed 2015-10-07(E)(1)

Mother and Father have thus failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions that caused the removal of the child from the home. Accordingly, this portion of the statutory requirement of R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) is satisfied.

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

In re A.W. · filed 2017-09-25(E)(1)

Based on clear and convincing evidence establishing ongoing concerns regarding Mother’s ability to provide a safe and secure environment for the children, notwithstanding the agency’s reasonable case planning and diligent efforts, Mother had failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions which caused the children to be placed outside of their home. R.C. 2151.414(E)(1). Under these circumstances, the juvenile court did not err by finding that the children could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent, thereby satisfying the first prong of the permanent custody test.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) permits a court to consider all conditions that caused a child to remain outside the home, beyond the immediate reasons for removal.

In re D.K. · filed 2013-08-14(E)(1)

Although Mother implicitly suggests that her depression is unrelated to the ongoing substance abuse problems which caused the removal of the children, even assuming that premise valid, in applying R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) to this case, the trial court was not constrained to consider only the immediate reasons for removal, but rather could consider all the conditions that caused the children to be placed outside the home.

The availability of an alternative placement is only one factor in the permanent-custody determination under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(d).

In re G.W. · filed 2014-06-16(D)(1)(d)

Although appellant argues that her counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion for legal custody on behalf of the Furhmans, we cannot find that there was a reasonable probability such a motion would have been granted. See In re N.P., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 97846 to 97855, 2012-Ohio-4298. In addition, the consideration of alternate placements for a child is just one of the factors a court must consider in its decision to grant permanent custody.

Section 2151.414 does not require a juvenile court to favor an alternative placement over awarding permanent custody.

In re J.R. · filed 2009-08-17

Our review of R.C. 2151.414, as previously outlined, reveals no requirement that the trial court favor alternate placement over awarding permanent custody.

Section 2151.414 does not make an available relative placement that could avoid terminating parental rights controlling or require it to receive greater weight than other best-interest factors.

In Re P.J., 2008-A-0047 (1-16-2009) · filed 2009-01-16(D)

"The statute requires a weighing of all the relevant factors * * *. R.C. 2151.414 requires the court to find the best option for the child once a determination has been made pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a) through (d). The statute does not make the availability of a placement that would not require a termination of parental rights an all-controlling factor. The statute does not even require the court to weigh that factor more heavily than other factors." Id.

A court deciding whether permanent custody is in a child's best interest need not find by clear and convincing evidence that no suitable relative is available, and the availability of a placement that would preserve parental rights is neither controlling nor entitled to greater weight than other relevant factors.

In re S.A. · filed 2011-05-20(D)

In In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498, 857 N.E.2d 532, 2006-Ohio-5513, the Ohio Supreme Court clearly found a trial court's statutory duty in determining whether it is in the best interest of a child to grant permanent custody to an agency does not include finding, by clear and convincing evidence, no suitable relative is available for placement. The statute requires the trial court to weigh all relevant factors. R.C. 2151.414 requires the court to find the best option for the child once a determination has been made pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (d). The statute does not make the availability of a placement which would not require a termination of parental rights an all-controlling factor nor require the court to weigh that factor more heavily than other factors. Schaeffer at ¶ 64.

Section 2151.414(D) requires the court to weigh all relevant best-interest factors, but the availability of a suitable relative placement is neither controlling nor entitled to greater weight than the other factors.

In re R.P. · filed 2011-10-14(D)

The court must consider all of the elements in R.C. 2151.414(D) as well as other relevant factors. There is not one element that is given greater weight than the others pursuant to the statute. ... The statute does not make the availability of a placement that would not require a termination of parental rights an all-controlling factor. The statute does not even require the court to weigh that factor more heavily than other factors.”

Section 2151.414(D) requires the court to weigh all relevant best-interest factors, but the availability of a relative placement that would avoid terminating parental rights is neither controlling nor entitled to greater weight than the other factors.

In re R.E.P. · filed 2011-10-14(D)

The court must consider all of the elements in R.C. 2151.414(D) as well as other relevant factors. There is not one element that is given greater weight than the others pursuant to the statute. ... The statute requires a weighing of all relevant factors, and the trial court did that in this case. R.C. 2151.414 requires the court to find the best option for the child once a determination has been made pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (d). The statute does not make the availability of a placement that would not require a termination of parental rights an all-controlling factor. The statute does not even require the court to weigh that factor more heavily than other factors.

Section 2151.414 does not require a juvenile court to find that no suitable relative is available and does not make a relative placement that avoids termination controlling over other best-interest factors.

In re B.S. · filed 2012-03-13(D)

The statute requires the trial court to weigh all relevant factors. R.C. 2151.414 requires the court to find the best option for the child once a determination has been made pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (d). The statute does not make the availability of a placement which would not require a termination of parental rights an all-controlling factor nor require the court to weigh that factor more heavily than other factors.

An available placement that would preserve parental rights is not controlling or entitled to greater weight than other factors because the statute requires the court to select the best option for the child.

In re T.B. · filed 2014-05-15(D)(1)(d)

We also recognize that “[R.C. 2151.414] does not make the availability of a placement that would not require a termination of parenting rights an all-controlling factor [and] does not even require the court to weigh that factor more heavily than other factors.” ... Rather, the statute “requires the court to find the best option for the child[.]”

In weighing a child's best interests under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1), family unity and blood relationship are important but not controlling, and an available placement that would preserve parental rights need not outweigh the other factors.

In re E.W. · filed 2014-06-12(D)(1)

In ruling upon a motion for permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414, the trial court must weigh of all the relevant factors in determining a child’s best interests. R.C. 2151.414(D)(1). Although family unity and “blood relationship” are important factors in determining the best interest of a child, neither of these factors is controlling. ... [t]he statute does not make the availability of a placement that would not require a termination of parenting rights an all-controlling factor [and] does not even require the court to weigh that factor more heavily than other factors.

R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(d) does not require clear and convincing proof that no suitable relative placement exists or that terminating parental rights is the only option, and relative availability receives no heightened weight.

In re J.H. · filed 2014-07-10(D)(1)(d)

The Schaefer court further rejected any argument that a juvenile court must determine “by clear and convincing evidence that ‘termination of appellant’s parental rights was not only a necessary option, but also the only option’ or that “no suitable relative was available for placement.” Id. at ¶64. The court stated that R.C. 2151.414(D) “does not make the availability of a placement that would not require a termination of parental rights an all-controlling factor,” and it “does not even require the court to weigh that factor more heavily than other factors.” ... Consequently, the trial court had no duty to first consider placing the child with appellant’s father before granting appellee permanent custody.

A relative's willingness to care for a child does not alter the statutory permanent-custody analysis.

In re D.K.W. · filed 2014-06-30(D)(1)(d)

The willingness of a relative to care for a child does not alter what the court must consider in determining permanent custody.

Section 2151.414 does not make the availability of a placement that preserves parental rights controlling or require that factor to receive greater weight than other best-interest factors.

In re A.M. · filed 2014-08-28(D)

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

When permanent agency custody is compared with legal custody to a relative, the court conducts one statutory best-interest review because a finding that permanent custody serves the child's best interest necessarily rules out relative legal custody.

In re K.M. · filed 2014-09-29(D)

If permanent custody is in the child’s best interest, legal custody or placement with relatives necessarily is not.

Considering placement with a relative is not itself a statutory requirement, but the possibility belongs within the factor addressing the child's interactions and relationships with significant people.

In re E.D. · filed 2014-10-17(D)(1)(a)

Consideration of placement of a child with a relative is not a statutory requirement. In re F.C., 2d Dist. Montgomery. No. 23803, 2010-Ohio-3113, ¶ 24. “That possibility is a matter that ought to be considered in connection with the child’s interaction and relationship with the child’s parents, relatives, foster caregivers, out-of-home providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child.”

The permanent-custody framework does not require the court to consider relative placement first or prove that no suitable relative exists, and a placement preserving parental rights is not controlling or entitled to greater weight.

In re J.P. · filed 2015-11-20(D)(1)(d)

However, the statutory framework governing permanent custody complaints does not require the trial court to consider relative placement before granting permanent custody. In re N.S., 4th Dist. Hocking No. 14CA22, 2015-Ohio-1468, ¶ 40; In re C.T.L.A., 4th Dist. Hocking No. 13CA24, 2014-Ohio-1550, ¶ 52. The trial court is not required to find by clear and convincing evidence that no suitable relative was available for placement.

A child's bond with a relative does not defeat permanent custody when the relative failed a home study and has a problematic history with children services.

In re M.A.-L. · filed 2015-11-23(D)(1)(d)

Although there was testimony that the children were bonded with maternal grandmother, the trial court, as noted above, addressed its reservations with placing the children with her. Among other things, the trial court considered that maternal grandmother had failed to complete a satisfactory home study and also had a history with children's services.

A trial court need not consider relative placement before granting permanent custody or find that no suitable relative is available, because an alternative placement preserving parental rights is not controlling or entitled to greater weight.

In re T.G. · filed 2015-12-16(D)(1)(d)

A juvenile court need not determine by clear and convincing evidence that “termination of appellant's parental rights was not only a necessary option, but also the only option.” In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498, 2006-Ohio-5513, 857 N.E.2d 532, ¶ 64. Nor must “the juvenile court find by clear and convincing evidence that no suitable relative was available for placement.” Id.

A juvenile court need not find a relative unsuitable before granting permanent custody, because relatives other than parents receive no preference in custody awards and the controlling issue is the agency's motion.

In re C.H. · filed 2016-01-07(D)(1)(d)

A juvenile court need not find, by clear and convincing evidence, that a relative is an unsuitable placement option prior to granting an agency’s motion for permanent custody. ... No preference exists for family members, other than parents, in custody awards.

A proposed relative placement does not satisfy the legally-secure-placement factor when the relative cannot meet the children's significant mental-health needs and fails to recognize conduct that threatens their stability.

In re K.Y. · filed 2016-02-19(D)(1)(d)

There is evidence in this record to support the juvenile court’s finding that D.S. is not capable of assuming legal custody of the children. And there is evidence in the record to support a finding that an award of permanent custody is in the best interest of the children.

Section 2151.414 does not make an available placement preserving parental rights controlling or require that factor to receive greater weight than other best-interest factors.

In re G.S. · filed 2016-03-23(D)(1)(d)

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

The court need not consider relative placement before granting permanent custody or find by clear and convincing evidence that a grandparent is unsuitable, because relatives do not receive the same presumptive rights as parents.

In re M.H. · filed 2016-04-11(D)(1)(d)

A trial court is not required to consider placing a child with a relative prior to granting permanent custody to an agency. ... Relatives seeking custody of a child are not afforded the same presumptive legal rights that a parent receives. ... A trial court does not even need to find by clear and convincing evidence that a grandparent is not a suitable placement option.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) requires the court to choose the child's best option, not to prove that terminating parental rights is the only option or that an available relative is unsuitable.

In re I.H. · filed 2016-04-25(B)(1)

There is no requirement that a trial court find by clear and convincing evidence that a relative is an unsuitable placement option prior to granting permanent custody to an agency. ... Indeed, the statutory duty imposed by R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) does not require a trial court to determine by clear and convincing evidence that the termination of a parent’s rights is the only option. ... Instead, the statute requires the trial court to find the “best option” for the child once a determination is made under to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1). ... “The statute does not make the availability of a placement that would not require a termination of parental rights an all-controlling factor.”

A relative's last-minute willingness does not defeat permanent custody when the relative previously withdrew from consideration and never moved to intervene or seek custody.

In re KC · filed 2016-05-27(D)(1)(d)

Loretta was given proper consideration for placement, but she withdrew her willingness to seek custody of the minor child, and never sought to intervene or file her own motion for permanent custody.

Section 2151.414 does not require proof that terminating parental rights is the only option or that no suitable relative exists; the court must weigh all relevant factors and choose the child's best option.

In re N.C. · filed 2016-06-01(D)(1)(d)

Rather, R.C. 2151.414 requires that the juvenile court weigh all the relevant factors and “find the best option for the child.”

A court need not find that termination is the only option or that no suitable person is available; Section 2151.414 requires weighing all relevant factors to find the best option for the child.

In re B.H. · filed 2016-08-15(D)(1)(d)

[A] trial court need not determine that terminating parental rights is “the only option” or that no suitable person is available for placement. ... Rather, R.C. 2151.414 requires the court to weigh “all the relevant factors * * * to find the best option for the child.”

A trial court need not consider relative placement before awarding an agency permanent custody.

In re C.W.G. · filed 2016-08-16(D)(1)(d)

We have previously recognized that a trial court need not consider relative placement before awarding a children services agency permanent custody.

A court need not favor placement with a relative when consideration of all § 2151.414(D)(1) factors shows that permanent custody with a children-services agency is in the child's best interest.

In re E.F. · filed 2016-10-11(D)(1)

In addition, courts are not required to favor a relative if, after considering all the relevant factors under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1), it is in the child's best interest to grant permanent custody to a children services agency. ... “A child's best interests are served by the child being placed in a permanent situation that fosters growth, stability, and security.”

Section 2151.414(D) requires the court to select the child's best placement, not the least drastic placement or the only option, and a placement avoiding termination of parental rights is not controlling or entitled to extra weight.

In re J.M. · filed 2016-10-13(D)

However, R.C. 2151.414(D) does not make the availability of a placement that would not require a termination of parenting rights an all-controlling factor, and does not even require the court to weigh that factor more heavily than other factors. ... Further, a juvenile court need not determine by clear and convincing evidence that “termination of appellant’s parental rights was not only a necessary option, but also the only option.” ... Rather, the statute “requires the court to find the best option for the children.”

Permanent custody may provide legally secure placement when the agency has investigated relatives but none is both suitable and willing to provide a permanent home.

In re S.M. · filed 2016-11-21(D)(1)(d)

CSB had contacted several relatives who lived in this area and out of state but, by the time of the hearing, had been unable to find any suitable relative who was willing and able to take legal custody of any of the children.

A relative's willingness to care for a child does not change the permanent-custody best-interest factors, and a court need not consider relative placement before granting permanent custody to an agency.

In re S.G. · filed 2016-12-27(D)(1)

Furthermore, courts have consistently held that, “The willingness of a relative to care for the child does not alter what a court considers in determining permanent custody.” In re P.S., 5th Dist. Licking No. 16-CA-11, 2016-Ohio-3489, ¶ 57, citing In re Patterson, 134 Ohio App.3d 119, 129, 730 N.E.2d 439, 447 (9th Dist.1999); In re J.T., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 93240, 93241, 2009-Ohio-6224, ¶ 58; see In re Haller, Wyandot No. 16-08-16, 2009-Ohio-545, ¶ 34; In re D.K.W., Clinton No. CA2014-02-001, 2014-Ohio-2896, ¶ 34. “Accordingly, a court is not required to consider placing a child with a relative prior to granting permanent custody to an agency.” In re P.S. at ¶ 57.

A proposed custodian's lack of a long-term housing plan may weigh against relative placement in the best-interest analysis.

In re C.M. · filed 2017-01-09(D)(1)(d)

Though Maternal Grandmother currently resides in an appropriate home, she admitted that she does not have a long-term plan in that residence and there is concern that she will move back to her home in Moscow, which would not be appropriate considering concerns about the other individuals residing there.

A juvenile court need not find a relative unsuitable before granting permanent custody or favor a relative when the child's best interest supports agency custody.

In re E.S. · filed 2017-01-20(D)(1)(d)

[T]he [permanent custody] statute does not require a juvenile court to consider relative placement before granting [a] motion for permanent custody. ... In other words, a juvenile court need not find, by clear and convincing evidence, that a relative is an unsuitable placement option prior to granting the permanent custody request.

A court need not find termination is the only option or favor a relative when permanent custody is in the children's best interest.

In re K.L. · filed 2017-02-02(D)(1)(d)

A juvenile court need not determine by clear and convincing evidence that “termination of appellant's parental rights was not only a necessary option, but also the only option.”

A relative's willingness to care for a child does not alter the statutory permanent-custody analysis.

In re L.W. · filed 2017-02-23(D)(1)(d)

We recognize that “[t]he willingness of a relative to care for a child does not alter what a court considers in determining whether to grant permanent custody.”

Although kinship placement and sibling relationships are relevant to best interest, subsection (D) does not require clear and convincing proof that no suitable relative is available before awarding permanent custody to the agency.

In re R.Mc. · filed 2018-03-29(D)

Although possible kinship placement and sibling relationships are factors relevant to the court’s best interest determination, the statute does not require a court to find by a “clear and convincing standard” that no suitable relative is available before awarding custody to the agency.

Section 2151.414 does not require a court to give the availability of a non-termination placement greater weight, and a court need not favor relative placement when permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In re S.S. · filed 2018-03-29(D)

The statute does not even require the court to weigh that factor more heavily than other factors. ... Therefore, courts are not required to favor relative or non-relative placement if, after considering all the factors, it is in the child’s best interest for the agency to be granted permanent custody.

A willing relative does not alter the statutory permanent-custody considerations, and a court need not consider relative placement before granting an agency permanent custody.

In re Z.W. · filed 2021-09-27(D)(1)

A relative’s willingness to care for the child does not alter the court’s considerations in deciding permanent custody. Id. As such, a trial court need not consider placing a child with a relative prior to granting permanent custody to an agency.

A relative's willingness to care for a child does not alter the factors governing whether permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In re A.F. · filed 2021-12-23(D)

Indeed, the willingness of a relative or interested individual to care for a child does not alter what a court must consider in determining whether an award of permanent custody is in the child’s best interest.

A relative's willingness to care for the child does not alter the court's permanent-custody best-interest considerations.

In re E.H. · filed 2022-09-07(D)(1)

A relative’s willingness to care for the child does not alter the court’s considerations in deciding permanent custody.

Section 2151.414(D) does not require clear and convincing proof that no suitable relative placement exists, and a placement that would avoid terminating parental rights is neither controlling nor entitled to greater weight.

In re M.G. · filed 2023-03-07(D)

In re Schafer made it clear that a trial court’s statutory duty, when determining whether it is in the best interest of a child to grant permanent custody to an agency, does not include finding by clear and convincing evidence that no suitable relative was available for placement. Id. R.C. 2151.414 “requires the court to find the best option ... for the child once a determination has been made pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (d). The statute does not make the availability of a placement that would not require a termination of parental rights an all-controlling factor. The statute does not even require the court to weigh that factor more heavily than other factors.”

Section 2151.414 does not make the availability of a relative placement controlling or require a court to give that factor greater weight than other best-interest factors.

In re J.C. · filed 2023-04-17(D)

As the Ohio Supreme Court has instructed, in deciding what is in a child's best interests, R.C. 2151.414 does not make the availability of a relative placement an all-controlling factor; the statute does not even require the court to weigh that factor more heavily than other factors.

Section 2151.414(D)'s best-interest inquiry does not require the court to determine whether a relative is available for placement before granting permanent custody to an agency.

In re S.S. · filed 2023-05-16(D)

Regardless, in satisfying its duty to determine whether permanent custody to the agency is in a child’s best interest, the juvenile court was not required to determine whether maternal great-grandmother or any other relative was available for placement.

Section 2151.414(D) requires weighing all relevant factors to find the best option for the child and does not make an available placement that avoids terminating parental rights controlling or entitled to greater weight.

In re A.C. · filed 2023-08-30(D)

As the Supreme Court of Ohio has explained, “[R.C. 2151.414(D)] requires a weighing of all the relevant factors * * * [and] requires the court to find the best option for the child * * *.” ... Furthermore, “[t]he statute does not make the availability of a placement that would not require a termination of parental rights an all-controlling factor. The statute does not even require the court to weigh that factor more heavily than other factors.”

If permanent custody is in the child's best interest under section 2151.414(D)(1), legal custody to a relative necessarily is not.

In re I.R. · filed 2023-08-30(D)(1)

Moreover, this Court has held “that if permanent custody is in the best interest of the child, legal custody to a relative necessarily is not.”

When permanent custody is in the child's best interest under section 2151.414(D), legal custody to a relative necessarily is not, so the appellate court conducts a single best-interest review.

In re C.T. · filed 2023-10-10(D)

If permanent custody is in the children’s best interest, legal custody to [any other person] necessarily is not. ‘Consequently, this Court will review the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D) in reviewing the [best interest] decision of the trial court * * *’

Section 2151.414(D)(1)'s best-interest inquiry supported permanent custody rather than legal custody to a relative who failed to enforce safety restrictions on the parents' visitation.

In re P.L. · filed 2023-10-11(D)(1)

Given the evidence before the trial court about Uncle’s inability to appropriately monitor parental visitation with these children, Uncle has failed to demonstrate that the trial court lost its way in terminating parental rights and denying his motion for legal custody.

If permanent agency custody is in the child's best interest under Section 2151.414(D), legal custody to a relative necessarily is not.

In re L.D. · filed 2023-11-08(D)

This Court has repeatedly emphasized “that if permanent custody is in the best interest of the child, legal custody to a relative necessarily is not.” In re M.S., 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 30506 and 30515, 2023-Ohio-1558, ¶ 26.

Section 2151.414 does not require a juvenile court to consider granting legal custody to a relative before granting permanent custody to an agency.

In re N.S. · filed 2023-11-21(D)(1)(d)

In fact, this court has stated, “nothing in R.C. 2151.414 requires a juvenile court to consider granting legal custody of a child to a relative prior to granting permanent custody to an agency.”

Section 2151.414(D)'s best-interest inquiry does not require clear and convincing proof that no suitable relative placement is available, and a placement that avoids termination is not controlling or entitled to greater weight.

In re P.S. · filed 2024-04-01(D)

In re Schafer made it clear that a trial court’s statutory duty, when determining whether it is in the best interest of a child to grant permanent custody to an agency, does not include finding by clear and convincing evidence that no suitable relative was available for placement. ... R.C. 2151.414 “requires the court to find the best option for the child once a determination has been made pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (d). The statute does not make the availability of a placement that would not require a termination of parental rights an all-controlling factor. The statute does not even require the court to weigh that factor more heavily than other factors.”

The availability of a relative placement is not controlling under section 2151.414(D) and need not receive more weight than other best-interest factors.

In re J.C. · filed 2024-04-19(D)

As the Ohio Supreme Court has instructed, in deciding what is in a child's best interests, R.C. 2151.414 does not make the availability of a relative placement an ... all-controlling factor; the statute does not even require the court to weigh that factor more heavily than other factors.