Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2151.414

Section 2151.414(E) requires clear and convincing evidence that at least one of its enumerated factors exists before permanent custody may be awarded to the Department of Human Services.

In Re: Lauriano, Unpublished Decision (8-12-1999) · filed 1999-08-12(E)

The law in Ohio is that permanent custody may not be awarded to the Department of Human Services unless the trial court finds clear and convincing evidence that one or more of the eight enumerated factors in R.C. 2151.414 (E) exist.

Section 2151.414(B) requires a fuller evidentiary hearing when a parent withdraws acquiescence before judgment and the agency’s abbreviated presentation did not establish the permanent-custody requirements by clear and convincing evidence.

In Re Janway, Unpublished Decision (12-13-2000) · filed 2000-12-13(B)

In other words, the state did not present clear and convincing evidence from which the trial court could have concluded that it was in Taylor's best interest to grant permanent custody to the MCCSB. ... However, when Janway changed her mind before the MCCSB's request had been granted, we think that the trial court should have required the state to present more fully its evidence that the termination of Janway's parental rights was, indeed, in Taylor's best interests. Then the court could have determined whether there was clear and convincing evidence that Taylor's best interest would be served by granting permanent custody to the MCCSB and that he could not or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time. R.C. 2151.414 (B).

Judicial guidance to a self-represented parent about presenting best-interest testimony does not shift Section 2151.414(B)’s burden of proof when the court recognizes that the agency bears that burden.

In the Matter of Heidi S., Unpublished Decision (3-1-2002) · filed 2002-03-01(B)

Upon review of the statement and the context in which it was made, we conclude that the court was simply trying to assist appellant in his presentation of testimony, not shift the burden of proof. At the opening of the permanency hearing, the trial court stated that because the agency had the burden of proof it was to present its case first.

When a child has spent at least twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period in agency custody, § 2151.414 permits permanent custody only if clear and convincing evidence shows that it is in the child's best interest, and substantial parental progress can defeat that showing.

In Re Fry, Unpublished Decision (8-2-2002) · filed 2002-08-02(B)(1), (C), (D), (E)(1)

Where, as here, a child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period, R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1) permits a court to grant permanent custody upon a finding that it would be in the child's best interests. ... Considering the evidence of Clark's completion of a substantial portion of the case plan requirements, her positive relationship with her children, and discrepancies within the trial court's findings, we find that the record does not provide clear and convincing support for the trial court's determination that permanent placement would be in the children's best interests.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) allows permanent custody only when clear and convincing evidence establishes that permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In Matter of McLaughlin, Unpublished Decision (2-18-2003) · filed 2003-02-18(B)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1) provides that a court may grant a motion for permanent custody of a child only if it determines at a hearing, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interest of the child.

Permanent custody is supported when clear and convincing evidence establishes both best interest and inability to place, and the trial court makes supported findings on each applicable subsection (D) and (E) factor.

In Re Hibbard, Unpublished Decision (12-15-2003) · filed 2003-12-15(D), (E)

The trial court made findings related to each of the applicable statutory factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414 (D) and (E) which are supported by the evidence.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(a) permits an agency to receive permanent custody only when clear and convincing evidence shows both that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, with the latter determination requiring a finding under subsection (E).

In Re Martine P., Unpublished Decision (12-23-2004) · filed 2004-12-23(B)(1)(a), (D), (E)(1), (E)(4)

In the present case, the trial court appears to have proceeded under R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a) in granting LCCS permanent custody with regard to appellant. That statute requires the court to make two findings: (1) that a grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the children's best interest, and (2) that the children cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time. In order to find that the children cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time, a court must make a finding under R.C. 2151.414 (E). ... After thoroughly reviewing the record in this case, we conclude that the trial court's findings that Martine, Wali and Jy-Daesha cannot and should not be placed with appellant within a reasonable time and that permanent custody was in the children's best interest were supported by clear and convincing evidence. ... We cannot disagree with the trial court's conclusion that this demonstrated a lack of commitment toward the children. This alone was sufficient to support a finding that the children could not be placed with the children within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the children. In addition, there was clear and convincing evidence that appellant failed to remedy the conditions that led to the children's removal from the home.

Subsection (E) requires a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent when clear and convincing evidence establishes at least one listed factor, and subsection (D) governs whether permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In Re Holmes, Unpublished Decision (2-28-2005) · filed 2005-02-28(D), (E)

R.C. 2151.414 (E) provides that if the trial court determines by clear and convincing evidence that one or more listed factor exist, the trial court "shall enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent." ... Under R.C. 2151.414 (D), the trial court could award permanent custody of Desire and Dynasty to HCJFS if the court determined by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody was in the best interest of the children and that any of five listed factors applied. ... After reviewing the record, we conclude that the evidence supported the findings made by the magistrate and adopted by the trial court, and, therefore, Turner's second assignment of error is without merit.

Section 2151.414 requires a court to grant permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence establishes both that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent and that permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In Re Gresham, Unpublished Decision (5-20-2005) · filed 2005-05-20(B)(2), (B), and (E)

A trial court shall grant permanent custody of a child to the movant if the court determines that the child cannot be placed with either of his parents in a reasonable period of time or that he should not be placed with either of his parents, and if permanent custody is in the child's best interest. R.C. §§ 2151.414 (B)(2) and 2151.414 (E). A determination of the child's best interest must be based on clear and convincing evidence. R.C. § 2151.414 (B). ... Because Cranford consistently failed to comply with her case plan, we cannot find that the trial court erred in finding by clear and convincing evidence that the child could not be placed with his mother in a reasonable period of time and that he should not be placed with his mother. We also find that the record supports the trial court's finding that permanent custody was in the child's best interest.

R.C. 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence that a listed condition prevents placement with either parent and that permanent custody serves the child's best interest.

In Re Rhyan B., Unpublished Decision (7-29-2005) · filed 2005-07-29(B)(1)(a), (D), and (E)(1)

In granting a motion for permanent custody, the trial court must find that one or more of the conditions listed in R.C. 2151.414 (E) exist as to each of the child's parents. If, after considering all relevant evidence, the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that one or more of the conditions exists, the court shall enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1). Further, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (D), a juvenile court must consider the best interest of the child by examining factors relevant to the case including, but not limited to, those set forth in paragraphs (1)-(5) of subsection (D). ... Based on our review of the record, we find that the trial court's decision was supported by clear and convincing evidence and that an award of permanent custody to LCCS was in the children's best interest.

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

In the Matter of Van Atta, Unpublished Decision (8-15-2005) · filed 2005-08-15(B)(1)(a)

The Ohio Revised Code requires that the trial court determine, by clear and convincing evidence, that a grant of permanent custody to the agency that has so moved is in the best interest of the child and that one of four enumerated factors applies. R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1). In the instant case, CPSU moved for permanent custody under the first factor, that "[t]he child cannot be placed with either of the child's parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child's parents." R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a). ... Additionally, there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to conclude that CPSU proved by clear and convincing evidence that Andrew could not be placed with his mother within a reasonable time. ... Finally, there was sufficient evidence in the record for the trial court to conclude that granting permanent custody to CPSU was in Andrew's best interests. In determining the child's best interests, the trial court is required to consider all relevant factors, including the factors listed in R.C. 2151.414 (D). ... Accordingly, there is substantial evidence supporting the trial court's conclusion that CPSU proved by clear and convincing evidence that granting permanent custody to the agency was in Andrew's best interests.

Section 2151.414 permits permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence establishes that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time and that permanent custody serves the child's best interest.

In Re Z.Y., Unpublished Decision (1-19-2006) · filed 2006-01-19(B), (D), and (E)

The standard of proof to be used by the trial court when conducting permanent custody proceedings is that of clear and convincing evidence. In considering an award of permanent custody, the court must determine whether, by clear and convincing evidence, it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody to CCDCFS and that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time. R.C. 2151.414 (B). ... Accordingly, the court did not err when it found that Z.Y. and Y.Y. could not or should not be placed with appellant within a reasonable time and that permanent custody to CCDCFS was in the children's best interest.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) requires a juvenile court to determine by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and to expressly state that standard in its decision or entry.

In Matter of C.G., Ca2007-03-005 (8-27-2007) · filed 2007-08-27(B)(1)

We therefore hold that before a juvenile court can grant permanent custody of a child to a children services agency, the court must determine, by clear and convincing evidence , that permanent custody is in the child's best interest, and must so state in its decision and/or entry terminating parental rights and granting permanent custody to an agency.

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing proof to support a motion for permanent custody.

In Re D.D., 07ap-408 (10-25-2007) · filed 2007-10-25

The proof in support of the motion must be clear and convincing. See R.C. 2151.414 . Such proof was present here.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) requires a juvenile court to expressly find by clear and convincing evidence both that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and that a statutory factor, including the 12-of-22-month factor, applies.

In Re D.B., Ca2007-05-135 (10-9-2007) · filed 2007-10-09(B)(1)

In light of the foregoing, we find that the juvenile court's failure to expressly make its best interest determination under the clear and convincing standard as required under R.C. 2151.414 (B) constitutes reversible error. In re C.G. , Preble App. Nos. CA2007-03-005 and CA2007-03-006, ¶ 30. Likewise, the juvenile court's failure to expressly make its "12 of 22" rule determination under the clear and convincing standard as required under R.C. 2151.414 (B) constitutes reversible error.

Section 2151.414(B) requires a trial court's reasonable-efforts finding to be supported by clear and convincing evidence.

In Matter of Wayne Y., L-07-1259 (1-25-2008) · filed 2008-01-25(B)

A trial court's reasonable efforts finding must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. R.C. 2151.414 (B). Thus, such findings will not be overturned as against the manifest weight of the evidence, if the record contains competent, credible evidence by which the court could have formed a firm belief or conviction that the essential statutory elements for a termination of parental rights have been established.

Section 2151.414 permits termination of parental rights when clear and convincing evidence establishes that permanent custody is in the child's best interests and a condition in subsection (B)(1) applies, including that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

In Re K.C., 22243 (5-30-2008) · filed 2008-05-30(B)(1)(a), (D), (E)(1)

A trial court may terminate a parent's right to his or her child and grant permanent custody to a government agency if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the grant of permanent custody is in the best interests of the child and finds that one of the factors listed in R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1) applies. ... Thus, we agree with the trial court and hold that clear and convincing evidence was presented that Snow did not substantially comply with the case plan provided by MCCSB in order to regain custody of the children. The record further establishes by clear and convincing evidence that it was in the best interest of the children to be placed in the permanent custody of MCCSB. ... Thus, placement within a reasonable time could not be achieved with any of the children's parents or other relatives.

Section 2151.414 supports permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence establishes the subsection (E) placement determination and credible testimony satisfies subsection (D)'s best-interest test.

In Re Dunn, 2008ap030019 (7-28-2008) · filed 2008-07-28(B), (D), and (E)

R.C. 2151.414 (E) sets out the factors relevant to determining permanent custody. ... R.C. 2151.414 (B) enables the court to grant permanent custody if the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child. R.C. 2151.414 (D) sets out the factors relevant to determining the best interests of the child. ... From the record, there is clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's decision, if you find as the trial court did on the credibility of the social workers from Personal and Family Counseling Services. {¶ 43} The best interest test is satisfied by the testimony of Personal and Family Counseling home base worker Kimberly Weitzman, Pathway community service provider Katrina Richards, appellee's social worker Beth Bertini, and therapeutic foster parent Christopher Barto, wherein they all opined the child's life would be turned around and become stable with permanent custody to appellee. T. at 65-66, 108-109, 202-204. {¶ 44} Upon review, we find the trial court did not err in granting permanent custody of the child to appellee.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(a) permits an award of permanent custody to a children services agency upon clear and convincing evidence that the award is in the child’s best interest and that a nonabandoned, nonorphaned child outside the statutory 12-of-22-month category cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

In Re B.F., 2008 Ca 11 (10-3-2008) · filed 2008-10-03(B)(1)(a)

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

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence both of a qualifying parental-placement ground under subsection (E) and that permanent custody serves the child's best interest under subsection (D).

In Re B.G., 08ca009385 (1-12-2009) · filed 2009-01-12(B)(1), (D), and (E)

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

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence supporting the child's best interests and the statutory grounds for concluding that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent.

In Matter of Estep, 08ca107 (2-20-2009) · filed 2009-02-20(B), (D), (E)(1), (E)(4), (E)(16)

"Clear and convincing evidence" is defined as evidence sufficient to "produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established." ... R.C. 2151.414 (E) sets out the factors relevant to determining permanent custody. ... R.C. 2151.414 (B) enables the court to grant permanent custody if the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child. R.C. 2151.414 (D) sets out the factors relevant to determining the best interests of the child. ... From our review of the record, we find the magistrate's conclusions, approved and adopted by the trial court, to be supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record.

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent and that permanent custody is in the child's best interest; failure to remedy the conditions causing removal and lack of commitment can satisfy the parental-placement requirement.

In Matter of Celecia G., L-08-1261 (2-26-2009) · filed 2009-02-26(D), (E)(1), (E)(4)

Before the court can grant permanent custody of a child to a public services agency, however, the court must determine, by clear and convincing evidence, that: (1) the child cannot be placed with one of her parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with a parent, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (E); and (2) an order of the permanent custody to the child services agency is in the best interest of the child, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (D). ... Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that there was more than enough clear and convincing evidence offered at the trial court level to support the juvenile judge's findings under R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) and (4).

Section 2151.414(E) requires all findings in a proceeding to terminate parental rights to be supported by clear and convincing evidence.

In Re A.A., 2008 Ca 53 (5-8-2009) · filed 2009-05-08(E)

In a proceeding for the termination of parental rights, all of the court's findings must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. R.C. 2151.414 (E); In re J.R. , Montgomery App. No. 21749, 2007-Ohio-186 , at ¶ 9 .

Section 2151.414(B)(1)’s clear-and-convincing-evidence requirement may be satisfied by stipulated facts, depending on the nature of the matters stipulated.

In Re B.M. · filed 2009-04-10(B)(1)

Since a stipulation has the same force and effect as testimony, it may, depending on the nature of the matter or matters stipulated, rise to the level of clear and convincing evidence.

Section 2151.414 requires permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence establishes a qualifying condition under division (B)(1) and that permanent custody is in the child’s best interest, and one best-interest factor resolved in favor of permanent custody is sufficient after consideration of all relevant evidence.

In re M.B. · filed 2011-09-15(B)(1)(a), (D)(1), (E)(1), (E)(2), (E)(11)

A court is required to grant permanent custody of a child to CCDCFS if, by clear and convincing evidence, it determines, based on a two-prong test, that (1) one of the conditions set out in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)-(d) exists and (2) the granting of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child based on the statutory factors in R.C. 2151.414(D). ... Again, only one of the R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) factors need to be resolved in favor of awarding permanent custody. ... As we already determined that mother failed to meet her evidentiary burden pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(E)(11), we find the trial court did not err in awarding permanent custody to CCDCFS as one factor, upon reviewing all relevant evidence, was resolved in favor of the decision.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) permits a trial court to grant permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence establishes that permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In re T.S. · filed 2012-05-30(B)(1)

R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) enables a trial court to grant permanent custody if the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child. ... Upon review, we find sufficient clear and convincing evidence was presented to support the trial court's decision to grant appellee permanent custody of T.S., K.S., and M.S.

Section 2151.414 permits an award of permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence establishes that the award is in the child's best interest and that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

In Re Hollingsworth, 2007-Ca-32 (12-21-2007) · filed 2007-12-21(B)(1)(a), (D)

Following the hearing, R.C. § 2151.414 (B) authorizes the juvenile court to grant permanent custody of the child to the public or private agency if the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody to the agency, and that any of the following apply: ... "(a) the child is not abandoned or orphaned, and the child cannot be placed with either of the child's parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child's parents; ... We have reviewed the record, and we find the judgment of the trial court is supported by sufficient relevant, competent, and credible evidence from which the court could determine by clear and convincing evidence that the child could not be placed with either of his parents within a reasonable amount of time, and should not be placed with his parents. The record also supports the court's finding by clear and convincing evidence it is in the child's best interest to grant permanent custody to Children's Services Board so he may be adopted.

Clear and convincing evidence under subsection (B)(1) requires more than a preponderance but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt and must produce a firm belief or conviction.

In re D.A.W. · filed 2019-06-28(B)(1)

Clear and convincing evidence is “that measure or degree of proof which is more than a mere ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ but not to the extent of such certainty as is required ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ in criminal cases, and which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.”

A permanent-custody judgment must be supported by sufficient clear and convincing evidence to terminate parental rights and grant the agency permanent custody.

In re T.A.R. · filed 2022-06-02(B)(1)

{¶ 24} Upon review, we find sufficient clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's decision to terminate appellant's parental rights and grant appellee permanent custody of the child, and do not find any manifest miscarriage of justice.

A juvenile court's best-interest determination supporting permanent custody must be established by clear and convincing evidence.

In re A.A. · filed 2024-01-23(B)(1)

The juvenile court’s determination must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1).

An initial-disposition permanent-custody award under R.C. 2151.353 requires clear and convincing evidence of a subsection (E) placement finding and a subsection (D)(1) best-interest finding.

In re C.V. · filed 2023-01-26(D)(1), (E)

R.C. 2151.353(A)(4) authorizes a trial court to grant permanent custody to an agency where a child has been adjudicated neglected, dependent, or abused. The trial court must determine by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) “the child cannot be placed with one of the child’s parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent” pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(E); and (2) “permanent commitment is in the best interest of the child” pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(D)(1). R.C. 2151.353(A)(4).

Section 2151.414(D)'s permanent-custody best-interest factors may also guide an award of temporary custody when Chapter 2151 supplies no specific temporary-custody factors.

In re G.G. · filed 2022-05-18(D)

However, as Ohio courts are guided by the best interest factors in R.C. 2151.414(D) (relating to permanent custody) and in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) (relating to the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities) in legal custody cases, it is reasonable to seek guidance from those same factors regarding an award of temporary custody.”

Subsection (B)(1) generally governs an agency’s permanent-custody motion filed after an initial disposition, while an original complaint requesting permanent custody is governed through R.C. 2151.353(A)(4).

In re R.B. · filed 2022-05-23(B)(1)

Because BCDJFS filed its motions for permanent custody of R.B. and B.C. after the juvenile court had already issued an initial disposition, it was R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) that applied to BCDJFS' motions for permanent custody at issue in this case. See In re T.K.K. at ¶ 23, fn.1 (noting that R.C. 2151.414[B][1] "generally applies when an agency files a motion for permanent custody after an initial disposition"); see also In re W.R., 12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2011-08-016, 2012-Ohio-382, ¶ 30 ("[i]n cases where an agency files a request for permanent custody as part of an initial disposition the court is guided by the standards in R.C. 2151.353[A][4]")

When permanent custody is requested in an initial complaint under R.C. 2151.353 rather than by a later R.C. 2151.413 motion, subsection (B)’s factors do not apply, but the court must still apply subsection (E)’s placement factors and subsection (D)(1)’s best-interest factors.

In re L.K. · filed 2022-06-02(A)(1), (B), (D)(1), (E)

{¶ 104} As a preliminary matter, LCCS points out that mother’s brief relies on R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)-(d), which the agency argues is inapplicable to this case because the agency moved for permanent custody of the children under R.C. 2151.353. We agree. The procedures outlined in R.C. 2151.414 apply only to a motion for permanent custody filed under R.C. 2151.413. R.C. 2151.414(A)(1) (“Upon the filing of a motion pursuant to section 2151.413 of the Revised Code for permanent custody of a child * * *.”) (Emphasis added.) In contrast, R.C. 2151.353(A)(4) provides that awarding permanent custody to a children services agency is one of the disposition options available to a trial court that adjudicates a child abused, neglected, or dependent. Under this section, the court does not have to consider the factors in R.C. 2151.414(B), but it must still consider the factors in R.C. 2151.414(E) and determine whether awarding permanent custody to the agency is in the child’s best interest under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1). R.C. 2151.353(A)(4).

Subsection (B)(1)’s two-part test governs an agency motion filed after initial disposition, but an original complaint requesting permanent custody instead requires the placement analysis under subsection (E) and best-interest analysis under subsection (D)(1) through R.C. 2151.353(A)(4).

In re A.D. · filed 2022-03-14(B)(1), (D)(1), (E)

{¶ 26} That said, although we find the juvenile court did not err by granting CCDJFS' motions for permanent custody of A.D. and M.D., the same cannot be said for the trial court's decision granting CCDJFS' request for permanent custody of T.M.-E. This is because, as noted above, while the juvenile court properly applied the two-part test set forth under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) when ruling on CCDJFS' motions for permanent custody of A.D. and M.D. in Case Nos. 2019 JC 05200 and 2019 JC 5201, the juvenile court incorrectly applied that same two-part test to CCDJFS' request for permanent custody of T.M.-E. in Case No. 2021 JC 05409. Simply stated, rather than the two-part test set forth in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) that applied to A.D.'s and M.D.'s cases, it is the two-pronged test set forth in R.C. 2151.353(A)(4) that applies to T.M.-E.'s case.

Subsection (B)(2) does not apply without a reasonable-efforts-bypass finding under section 2151.419(A)(2), although its erroneous application is harmless when permanent custody is independently proper under subsection (B)(1).

In re A.U. · filed 2021-08-03(B)(2)

In the absence of a finding under R.C. 2151.419(A)(2), neither R.C. 2151.413(D)(2) nor 2151.414(B)(2) applied. Thus, we agree with mother to the extent she asserts the trial court erred in considering and applying R.C. 2151.414(B)(2). But despite this unnecessary analysis, the trial court separately determined that FCCS was entitled to permanent custody pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1). That dispositive determination was supported by the weight of the evidence, as discussed below in reference to mother's third assignment of error. Therefore, the trial court's error in considering and applying R.C. 2151.414(B)(2) to the facts of this case was harmless.

Section 2151.414 does not apply before a child has been adjudged abused, neglected, or dependent.

Elmer v. Lucas County Children Services Board · filed 1987-12-18

At this time, Jennifer Elmer had not been adjudged an “abused, neglected, or dependent child” and, therefore, R.C. 2151.412 is inapplicable. We also conclude that R.C. 2151.414 does not apply.

Section 2151.414’s version in effect when the permanent-custody motion was filed governs the ruling, rather than the version in effect at the earlier dependency adjudication.

In Re of Ament · filed 2001-04-23

This court has held that a trial court should apply the version of the statute in effect at the time that the motion for permanent custody was filed ... when ruling upon a motion for permanent custody. ... Therefore, the trial court did not err by failing to apply a former version of R.C. 2151.414.

Section 2151.414(E) provides guidance when considering a grandparent’s desire to retain custody, but the court need not determine the grandparent’s suitability under a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard.

In the Matter of Benavides, Unpublished Decision (5-3-2001) · filed 2001-05-03(E)

In reading these cases together, this court determines that the court should look to R.C. 2151.414 (E) for guidance when considering a grandparents' desire to retain custody of grandchildren, but that the trial court is not required to make its determination based upon the standard of clear and convincing evidence.

Section 2151.414 does not govern an award of legal custody to one parent when no permanent-custody motion was filed and custody was not granted to an agency.

In Re Howard, Unpublished Decision (10-7-2002) · filed 2002-10-07

{¶ 21} Neil maintains that in order to deprive parents of the custody of their children, R.C. 2151.414 requires a determination by the juvenile court that the children cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time and a determination of the best interests of the children. However, no motion for permanent custody under R.C. 2151.413 was made. Furthermore, custody has not been granted to any agency and the parents have not been deprived of the custody of their children. The children have been placed with the mother, Angelique. Therefore, Neil's reliance upon R.C. 2151.414 is misplaced.

The clear-and-convincing-evidence standard governing permanent-custody terminations under division (B) does not apply to a visitation modification when the parent's rights remain intact.

In Re Allen, Unpublished Decision (5-19-2003) · filed 2003-05-19(B)

However, appellant's parental rights were not terminated pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B). Appellant not only still maintains her parental rights, but also has visitation with her daughter. ... In addition, courts have held that another standard is applied in cases involving the modification of visitation.

Section 2151.414 governs permanent-custody proceedings and does not apply to a motion terminating an agency's temporary custody and granting legal custody to a relative, which preserves the parent's residual rights.

In Re Reeher, Unpublished Decision (6-30-2003) · filed 2003-06-30

As appellee correctly points out, however, R.C. 2151.414 deals with procedures for the court to follow upon motions for permanent custody. ... Appellee's motion sought to terminate temporary custody and grant legal custody to a relative. Permanent custody and legal custody are two distinct dispositions.

Section 2151.414's standards do not apply to a legal custodian who never had parental rights to the child.

In the Matter of Mercy Anne G., Unpublished Decision (3-14-2007) · filed 2007-03-14

With regard to Mercy Anne, although appellants had legal custody of her they never had parental rights to her so the standards set forth in R.C. 2151.414 , and the clear and convincing evidence standard, do not apply.

Although the legal-custody statutes contain no specific best-interest test, juvenile courts may use Section 2151.414(D)'s permanent-custody factors as guidance in legal-custody cases.

In re E.G. · filed 2017-05-01(D)

The statutory scheme regarding an award of legal custody does not include a specific test or set of criteria, but Ohio courts agree that the juvenile court must base its decision to award legal custody on the best interest of the child. In re B.B., 9th Dist. Lorain No. 15CA010880, 2016-Ohio-7994, ¶ 18, citing In re N.P., 9th Dist. Summit No. 21707, 2004-Ohio-110, ¶ 23. In that regard, the juvenile court is guided by the best interest factors enunciated in R.C. 2151.414(D) relating to permanent custody.

Section 2151.414(D)'s permanent-custody best-interest factors may guide a juvenile court when awarding legal custody.

In re M.B. · filed 2017-09-07(D)

“Although the statutory scheme regarding an award of legal custody does not include a specific test or set of criteria, the [Ohio appellate courts] have previously held that the juvenile court must base such a decision on the best interest of the child.” (Citation omitted.) In re R.R., 9th Dist. Summit No. 23641, 2007-Ohio-4808, ¶ 12. “In legal custody cases, trial courts should consider all factors relevant to the best interest of the child.” In re S.J., 9th Dist. Summit No. 23199, 2006-Ohio-6381, ¶ 34. “[T]he factors contained in R.C. 2151.414(D) may provide guidance to the trial court in making an award of legal custody.” In re R.R. at ¶ 12.

A court deciding whether to order a planned permanent living arrangement must consider all relevant Section 2151.414(D) best-interest factors.

In re M.E.K. · filed 2017-09-11(D)

In making the decision, a court must consider all of the following relevant factors found in R.C. 2151.414(D): ... After reviewing the record, we find that the juvenile court did not err by granting the PPLA where the court's decision was supported by clear and convincing evidence that the PPLA was in the child's best interest. During the hearing, the court heard evidence regarding the factors above.

A juvenile court deciding legal custody is guided by Section 2151.414(D)'s permanent-custody best-interest factors.

In re A.M. · filed 2017-09-18(D)

The statutory scheme regarding an award of legal custody does not include a specific test or set of criteria, but Ohio courts agree that the juvenile court must base its decision to award legal custody on the best interest of the child. In re B.B., 9th Dist. Lorain No. 15CA010880, 2016-Ohio-7994, ¶ 18, quoting In re N.P., 9th Dist. Summit No. 21707, 2004-Ohio-110, ¶ 23. In that regard, the juvenile court is guided by the best interest factors enunciated in R.C. 2151.414(D) relating to permanent custody.

A trial court may consider Section 2151.414(D)'s additional permanent-custody factors in a legal-custody case.

In re A.K. · filed 2017-10-06(D)

Upon review, we see no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s analysis of the additional R.C. 2151.414(D) factors.

A juvenile court deciding legal custody is guided by Section 2151.414(D)'s permanent-custody best-interest factors.

In re A.E. · filed 2018-06-18(D)

The juvenile court is guided by the best interest factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D) relating to permanent custody. In re B.G., 9th Dist. Summit No. 24187, 2008-Ohio-5003, ¶ 9, citing In re T.A., 9th Dist. Summit No. 22954, 2006-Ohio-4468, ¶ 17. Those factors include the interaction and interrelationships of the children, their wishes, their custodial history, and the children’s need for permanence.

A court deciding whether to award legal custody to a nonparent may use Section 2151.414(D)'s best-interest factors, Section 3109.04(F)(1)'s factors, a combination, or general best-interest considerations.

In re J.H. · filed 2018-06-29(D)

“In making such a determination, ‘courts have looked to the best interest factors of R.C. 2151.414(D), R.C. 3109.04(F)(1), a combination of the two, or general notions of what should be considered regarding the best interests of the [child].’” Id. at ¶ 32, quoting In re A.K., 9th Dist. Summit No. 26291, 2012-Ohio-4430, ¶ 25.

A juvenile court deciding legal custody is guided by Section 2151.414(D)'s permanent-custody best-interest factors.

In re A.G. · filed 2018-07-18(D)

The statutory scheme regarding an award of legal custody does not include a specific test or set of criteria, but Ohio courts agree that the juvenile court must base its decision to award legal custody on the best interest of the child. In re B.B., 9th Dist. Lorain No. 15CA010880, 2016-Ohio-7994, ¶ 18, quoting In re N.P., 9th Dist. Summit No. 21707, 2004-Ohio-110, ¶ 23. In that regard, the juvenile court is guided by the best interest factors enunciated in R.C. 2151.414(D) relating to permanent custody.

Section 2151.414(E)'s parental-fitness findings apply to permanent-custody proceedings, not grants of legal custody.

In re X.G. · filed 2018-12-06(E)

R.C. 2151.414(E) details the requirements and determinations that must be made upon the filing of a motion for permanent custody. However, as detailed above, this is a grant of legal custody, not permanent custody. Thus, R.C. 2151.414(E) does not apply.

A juvenile court deciding legal custody is guided by Section 2151.414(D)'s permanent-custody best-interest factors.

In re L.S. · filed 2018-12-19(D)

The statutory scheme regarding an award of legal custody does not include a specific test or set of criteria, but Ohio courts agree that the juvenile court must base its decision to award legal custody on the best interest of the children. In re B.B., 9th Dist. Lorain No. 15CA010880, 2016-Ohio-7994, ¶ 18, quoting In re N.P., 9th Dist. Summit No. 21707, 2004-Ohio-110, ¶ 23. In that regard, the juvenile court is guided by the best interest factors enunciated in R.C. 2151.414(D) relating to permanent custody.

A court determining whether a planned permanent living arrangement is in a child's best interest must consider all relevant Section 2151.414(D) factors.

In re B.H. · filed 2018-12-20(D)

In determining the best interest of the child, the court must consider all relevant factors, including those listed in R.C. 2151.414(D), such as the child’s relationship with their parents, the child’s wishes, and the child’s need for a legally secure permanent placement. Based on these factors, the record contains clear and convincing evidence that a planned permanent living arrangement was in B.H.’s best interest.

In deciding legal custody, a court may look to division (D)'s permanent-custody best-interest factors, shared-parenting factors, a combination of both, or general best-interest considerations.

In re A.V. · filed 2019-05-03(D)

“[C]ourts have looked to the best interest factors of R.C. 2151.414(D) [Regarding Permanent Custody], R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) [Regarding Shared Parenting], a combination of the two, or general notions of what should be considered regarding the best interests of the [child].”

A juvenile court is guided by division (D)'s permanent-custody best-interest factors when deciding legal custody.

In re H.S. · filed 2019-05-15(D)

In that regard, the juvenile court is guided by the best interest factors enunciated in R.C. 2151.414(D) relating to permanent custody.

When awarding legal custody to a nonparent, a juvenile court may choose the best-interest factors it deems appropriate rather than apply every division (D) factor.

In re K.P. · filed 2019-05-24(D)

“we must presume the juvenile court is free to consider any best interest factors it deems appropriate.”

A juvenile court deciding legal custody is guided by division (D)'s permanent-custody best-interest factors.

In re M.S. · filed 2019-10-09(D)

In that regard, the juvenile court is guided by the best interest factors enunciated in R.C. 2151.414(D) relating to permanent custody.

Section 2151.414's special protections apply to parents facing permanent divestiture of parental rights, not to a grandparent who previously held legal custody.

In re M.C. · filed 2020-09-08

We note R.C. 2151.414 applies to parents and the prospect of permanently divesting parents of their parental rights. Appellant is not M.C.'s parent, but rather his maternal grandmother and was his legal custodian.

Motions for legal custody by nonparents are evaluated using division (D)'s permanent-custody best-interest factors and a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.

In re A.K. · filed 2020-09-30(D)

Motions for legal custody by nonparents are also considered according to the “best interests” factors of R.C. 2151.414(D) applicable to permanent custody awards, and will not be reversed unless they lack support by a preponderance of the evidence.

Division (D)'s best-interest factors may support a legal-custody award to a relative under a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.

In re R.A. · filed 2020-10-09(D)

The juvenile reasonably determined that, based on to the best interest factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) and R.C. 2151.414(D), legal custody of R.A. to Grandmother was ... in the child’s best interest by a preponderance of the evidence.

Unlike permanent-custody cases, legal-custody decisions are not statutorily required to apply subsection (D)’s best-interest factors, although those factors are instructive.

In re N.N. · filed 2021-11-04(D)

Unlike permanent custody cases in which the trial court is guided by the factors outlined in R.C. 2151.414(D) before terminating parental rights and granting permanent custody, R.C. 2151.353(A)(3) does not provide factors the court should consider in determining the child’s best interest in a motion for legal custody. In re G.M. at ¶ 15. We must presume that, in the absence of best interest factors in a legal custody case, “the legislature did not intend to require the consideration of certain factors as a predicate for granting legal custody.” Id. at ¶ 16. Such factors, however, are instructive when making a determination as to the child’s best interest. In re E.A. at ¶ 13.

Subsection (D)’s permanent-custody factors are instructive and provide guidance in legal-custody proceedings.

In re K.R. · filed 2022-05-25(D)

{¶18} Mother argues the trial court erred in failing to consider the wishes of the child, as required by R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(b). As noted earlier, the instant proceeding is a legal custody proceeding, not a permanent custody proceeding. In legal custody proceedings, the R.C. 2151.414(D) factors are instructive and provide guidance to the juvenile court.

Courts may apply subsection (D)’s permanent-custody best-interest factors when considering legal custody because they resemble R.C. 3109.04’s factors.

In re M.W. · filed 2022-06-17(D)

Those factors are similar to the factors in R.C. 2151.414(D) that govern permanent custody motions, and courts ... sometimes apply both provisions when considering legal custody.

Because R.C. 3109.04’s private-custody factors resemble subsection (D)’s permanent-custody factors, a court may apply both when deciding legal custody.

In re M.S. · filed 2022-09-23(D)

“Those factors are similar to the factors in R.C. 2151.414(D) that govern permanent custody ... motions, and courts sometimes apply both provisions when considering legal custody.”

Section 2151.414 protects parents against permanent divestiture of parental rights; it does not give a former legal custodian who is a relative the same procedural protections.

In re E.E.D. · filed 2022-11-10

It applies to parents and identifies the circumstances in which parents may be permanently divested of their parental rights. ... J.L.T. is not E.E.D.’s parent. She is E.E.D.’s great-aunt and former legal custodian. As such, she is not entitled to the same protections as E.E.D.’s parents.

Although legal-custody proceedings do not mandate subsection (D)’s factors, courts may use them as instructive best-interest guidance.

In re J.T. · filed 2022-12-29(D)

Unlike permanent custody cases in which the juvenile court must consider the factors outlined in R.C. 2151.414(D), R.C. 2151.353(A)(3) does not independently specify the factors to be considered in determining what is in a child’s best interest on a request for legal custody. In re G.M., 2011-Ohio-4090, at ¶ 15. Nevertheless, this court has held that the R.C. 2151.414(D) best interest factors may be “instructive” in making that determination.

Although legal custody has no mandatory statutory test, the best-interest factors in Section 2151.414(D) are instructive in deciding legal custody.

In re A.R. · filed 2023-03-30(D)

When considering the best interest of a child in a legal custody matter, “there is no ‘specific test or set of criteria’ that must be applied or considered.” In re T.R. at ¶ 48. This court has however found the factors delineated in R.C. 2151.414(D) to be “instructive.”

The best-interest factors in Section 2151.414(D) guide a juvenile court deciding legal custody.

In re S.V. · filed 2023-05-31(D)

The juvenile court is guided by the best interest factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(D) relating to permanent custody.

The best-interest factors in Section 2151.414(D) guide a juvenile court deciding legal custody.

In re M.B. · filed 2023-05-31(D)

The juvenile court is guided by the best interest factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(D) relating to permanent custody.

A juvenile court deciding legal custody may consider the relevant best-interest factors in either Section 3109.04(F) or Section 2151.414(D).

In re K.S. · filed 2023-06-12(D)

A court may therefore consider the relevant best interest factors set forth in either R.C. 3109.04(F) or R.C. 2151.414(D) in determining the best interest of the child.

The best-interest factors in Section 2151.414(D) guide a juvenile court deciding whether to award legal custody to a parent or relative.

In re D.B. · filed 2024-05-22(D)

In that regard, the juvenile court is guided by the best interest factors enunciated in Revised Code Section 2151.414(D) relating to permanent custody.

The best-interest factors in Section 2151.414(D) guide a juvenile court deciding whether to award legal custody to a parent or relative.

In re C.M. · filed 2024-05-22(D)

In that regard, the juvenile court is guided by the best interest factors enunciated in R.C. 2151.414(D) relating to permanent custody.

The best-interest factors in Section 2151.414(D) are instructive when a juvenile court decides legal custody.

In re S.L. · filed 2024-05-23(D)

Although R.C. 2151.353(A)(3) does not provide factors the court should consider in determining the child’s best interest upon a motion for legal custody, the factors outlined in R.C. 2151.414(D) are instructive.

Although Section 2151.414(D)'s best-interest factors concern permanent custody, Ohio courts also use them to decide legal custody.

In re J.S. · filed 2024-08-30(D)

While the factors are related to permanent custody decisions, Ohio courts have adopted such standards in making legal custody decisions.

The best-interest factors in Section 2151.414(D) guide a juvenile court deciding legal custody even though the legal-custody statutes contain no specific test.

In re P.O. · filed 2024-09-11(D)

In that regard, the juvenile court is guided by the best interest factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(D) relating to permanent custody.

The best-interest factors in Section 2151.414(D) guide a juvenile court deciding legal custody.

In re L.W. · filed 2024-09-25(D)

The juvenile court is guided by the best interest factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(D) relating to permanent custody.

A legal-custody best-interest determination may use the factors in Section 2151.414(D), the factors in Section 3109.04(F)(1), a combination, or general best-interest considerations.

In re G.B. · filed 2024-11-22(D)

To determine a child’s best interest, a trial court may consider the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D), R.C. 3109.04(F)(1), “‘a combination of the two, or general notions of what should be considered regarding the best interests of the child.’” In re H.H. at ¶ 67, quoting In re. K.S. at ¶ 19.

The best-interest factors in Section 2151.414(D) guide a juvenile court deciding legal custody.

In re M.K. · filed 2024-11-25(D)

The juvenile court is guided by the best interest factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(D) relating to permanent custody.

The best-interest factors in Section 2151.414(D) guide a juvenile court deciding legal custody.

In re J.M. · filed 2024-11-27(D)

The juvenile court is guided by the best interest factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(D) relating to permanent custody.

Section 2151.414 governs motions for permanent custody by a county department, board, or certified organization that has temporary custody of the child.

Miller v. Miller · filed 1988-06-01

First, R.C. 2151.414 has no relevance to the cause sub judice since it deals with matters pertaining to motions for permanent custody of a child by a county department, board or certified organization that has temporary custody of the child.

Section 2151.414(A)(2) requires the court, on a motion for permanent custody, to determine whether the parents have acted, and will continue to act in the near future, so that the child is without adequate parental care, considering all relevant factors.

In re Babcock · filed 1990-03-09(A)(2)

That section specifically requires the court, upon the filing of a motion for permanent custody, to determine if "the parents have acted in such a manner that the child is a child without adequate parental care." R. C. 2151.414(A)(2).

Because section 2151.414 requires a finding that the child cannot be returned to either parent, a challenge to termination is not ripe until the court has jurisdiction over both parents.

In the Matter of Stephens, Unpublished Decision (6-5-2002) · filed 2002-06-05(E)

Finally, R.C. 2151.414 mandates a finding that the child cannot be returned to either parent before the child is handed over to the permanent custody of the state. Consequently, any error based on the trial court's decision to terminate Kashdan's parental rights would not be ripe without the trial court first having jurisdiction over both parents .

A court must consider the subsection (E) factors only when granting permanent custody under subsection (B)(1)(a).

In Re Willis, Unpublished Decision (12-18-2002) · filed 2002-12-18(B)(1)(a), (E)

The only time a trial court is required to consider the factors contained in section (E) is when it grants permanent custody pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a). The trial court did not grant permanent custody, to JFS, under this section of the code. Therefore, there was no need to consider the factors contained in section (E).

Division (E)'s factors govern whether a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parents.

In re L.C. · filed 2019-09-23(E)

R.C. 2151.414(E) sets forth factors a trial court is to consider in determining whether a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with the parents.

Division (E)(16) permits consideration of any other relevant factor when deciding whether a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

In re C.T. · filed 2020-02-20(E)(16)

R.C. 2151.414(E)(16) authorizes a trial court to consider “[a]ny other factor the court considers relevant” in determining whether a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

Division (E)(8) does not require proof that a mental illness contributing to repeated withholding of medical treatment or nutrition could not be resolved within a year.

In re J.B. · filed 2020-06-09(E)(8)

Contrary to what Mother implies, R.C. 2151.414(E)(8) does not require a finding that any mental illness that contributed to Mother’s decision to repeatedly withhold medical treatment or nutrition from J.B. could not be resolved within a year of the dispositional hearing.

A child's medical condition alone does not satisfy division (E)(8) without evidence that the parents actually withheld medical treatment.

In re S.D. · filed 2020-06-18(E)(8)

The condition in R.C. 2151.414(E)(8) is not satisfied by the mere existence of a child’s medical conditions where there was no evidence in the record that the parents actually withheld medical treatment.

A supported finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent precludes returning the child to the parent and supports permanent custody as the legally secure placement.

In re L.V. · filed 2024-12-19(D)(1)(d)

A trial court’s finding that it cannot or should not place a child with a parent precludes the court from considering returning the child to Mother’s custody. In re T.S., 2024-Ohio-827, ¶ 61 (8th Dist.), citing In re E.J., 2023-Ohio-1376, ¶ 47 (8th Dist.). Therefore, because L.V. should not be placed with either parent, the trial court had no choice but to find that permanent custody is in L.V.’s best interest.

Permanent custody is not supported when the statutory best-interest factors and reasonable-time placement factors are contradicted by the record’s professional evidence.

In re O.C. · filed 2022-01-27(D)(1), (E)(2), (4), and (11)

The evidence in this case did not support a finding that permanent custody was in O.C.’s best interest, and it unequivocally did not support a finding that O.C. cannot be placed with Mother or should not be placed with her within a reasonable time. Therefore, following a thorough review of the record and law, we conclude that the trial court’s judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Mother’s first assignment of error is sustained.

Section 2151.414 requires a court deciding permanent custody to consider the statutory best-interest and parental-placement factors and to apply a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard.

In Re Fleming · filed 1991-08-30(B), (D), and (E)

Upon review of all of the evidence that was before the trial court and as summarized above and each of the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414, as well as all other factors relevant to the determination of what was in Barbara’s best interest, this court finds that the standard of proof required by R.C. 2151.414 has been met and that the trial court did not err in granting permanent custody of Barbara to appellee.

Section 2151.414(D) no longer includes adoptability as a best-interest factor, so whether the child will be adopted need not be considered when deciding whether permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In the Matter of Lazar, Unpublished Decision (2-25-2000) · filed 2000-02-25(D)

Although former R.C. 2151.414 (D) listed the reasonable probability of the child being adopted as a factor to be considered by a juvenile court in its best interest analysis, adoptability is no longer a factor in the current version of the statute; therefore, whether or not Michael and Jessica will be adopted need not be considered in deciding whether clear and convincing evidence existed to support the juvenile court's determination that granting permanent custody to DHS was in the children's best interest.

Section 2151.414 requires a court deciding permanent custody to find by clear and convincing evidence both that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time and that permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In Re Felton, Unpublished Decision (4-12-2000) · filed 2000-04-12(B), (D), and (E)

R.C. 2151.414 (B) creates a two-prong test, requiring the court to find by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable amount of time or should not be placed with the parents, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414 (E), and (2) granting permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414 (D).

Section 2151.414(B)(1) permits permanent custody only when clear and convincing evidence shows that it is in the child's best interest and that at least one statutory ground applies.

In Re Campell, Unpublished Decision (10-12-2000) · filed 2000-10-12(B)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 provides in pertinent part: (B)(1) Except as provided in division (B)(2) of this section, the court may grant permanent custody of a child to a movant if the court determines at the hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this section, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody of the child to the agency that filed the motion for permanent custody and that any of the following apply: ... (d) The child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period ending on or after March 18, 1999.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) permits permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence shows it is in the child's best interest and the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent, while subsection (E) requires that placement finding when specified circumstances—including failure to remedy conditions or parental illness or dependency—exist.

In Re Egbert Children · filed 1994-12-27(B)(1), (E)

R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) permits a juvenile court to award permanent custody of a child to the moving party if the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that an award of permanent custody is in the child’s best interest and that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. ... R.C. 2151.414(E) requires a juvenile court to enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent where any of the following circumstances exist: ... “(1) * * * [T]he parent has failed continuously and repeatedly for a period of six months or more to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside his home. * * * ... “(2) The * * * severe and chronic emotional illness, * * * or chemical dependency of the parent makes the parent unable to provide an adequate permanent home for the child at the present time and in the foreseeable future[.]” ... Having carefully reviewed this testimony, we are satisfied that clear and convincing evidence exists to support the juvenile court’s finding that the children cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time and that an award of permanent custody to BCCSB is in the children’s best interest. Accordingly, the juvenile court did not err in granting the motion for permanent custody.

Section 2151.414(B) requires clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and that one of the statutory grounds applies, including that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

Matter of Andrews, Unpublished Decision (3-24-1997) · filed 1997-03-24(B)(1)

According to R.C. 2151.414 (B), permanent custody may be granted to a movant if the juvenile court determines by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the best interest of the child and any one of the factors listed in R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)-(3) apply. ... For purposes of this appeal, the relevant factor in R.C. 2151.414 (B) is found in section (1), which provides that "[t]he child is not abandoned or orphaned and the child cannot be placed with either of his parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with his parents."

Section 2151.414(B)(1) permits an agency to receive permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence shows that custody is in the child's best interest and the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time; subsection (D) identifies best-interest factors, and subsection (E) governs the finding that parental placement is not possible within a reasonable time.

In the Matter of Clendenen, Unpublished Decision (3-10-1997) · filed 1997-03-10(B)(1), (D), and (E)

R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1) allows the trial court to grant permanent custody of a child to an agency if the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the child's best interest to do so and the child cannot or should not be placed with either of his parents within a reasonable time. ... When making a best interest determination, a court must consider all relevant factors, including: the reasonable probability that the child will be adopted and whether a grant of permanent custody would facilitate an adoption, the child's relationship with his parents and others, the wishes of the child with regard for the child's maturity, the custodial history of the child, and the child's need for a legally secure permanent placement. R.C. 2151.414 (D). ... In determining whether a child can be placed with his parents within a reasonable time period, the court must consider all relevant evidence. R.C. 2151.414 (E). The court shall enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with his parents if one or more of several factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414 (E) are found to be the case.

Section 2151.414 permits an agency to receive permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence shows that custody is in the child's best interest and the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, including because a parent failed to remedy the conditions requiring removal.

In Re Boylan, Unpublished Decision (1-26-1998) · filed 1998-01-26(B)(1), (E)(1), (E)(12)

Under R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1), a trial court may grant permanent custody of a child to an agency if the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and the child cannot be placed with either of its parents within a reasonable time. ... The trial court shall find that a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time if the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that one or more of the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414 (E) exist. ... Based on the foregoing, the trial court's finding that Amanda could not or should not be returned to appellants within a reasonable period of time is supported by competent, credible evidence.

Section 2151.414 permits permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence shows that it is in the child’s best interest and that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time based on specified parental conditions.

Matter of C., Unpublished Decision (2-13-1998) · filed 1998-02-13(B)(1), (D), (E)(1)-(2)

This court has thoroughly reviewed the record of proceedings in the trial court and, upon consideration thereof, we find that there was clear and convincing evidence to support the lower court's finding that it was in Mary's best interest to grant permanent custody to the Lucas County Children Services Board. ... At the hearing on the motion for permanent custody, the trial court heard testimony that, while appellant completed the several programs required by her case plan, she has not shown that she was able to apply what she had learned; that appellant was still at risk for involvement with domestic violence; that appellant was not controlling her alcohol abuse; that appellant suffered from poorly modulated anger and "acting out;" and that appellant's brother, who had temporary custody of Mary since birth, was interested in adopting the child. Accordingly, this court finds that the trial court did not err by awarding permanent custody of Mary C. to Lucas County Children Services Board and appellant's first, second and third assignments of error are not well-taken.

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child’s best interest and that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, including a parent’s continuous and repeated failure to remedy the conditions causing removal despite reasonable agency efforts.

In Re Millie Gilpin, Unpublished Decision (3-9-1998) · filed 1998-03-09(B), (D), (E)(1)

An appellate court will not reverse a trial court's determination pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B) if the trial court's judgment is supported by sufficient credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case. ... We also find that, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1), clear and convincing evidence supports the finding that appellant failed to follow the case plan, and did not "substantially remedy the conditions causing the [children] to be placed outside the home." ... We find pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (D) that clear and convincing evidence supports the magistrate's conclusion that it was in the best interest of the children to have CCDHS awarded permanent custody.

Section 2151.414(B) permits permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence shows that custody is in the child's best interest and the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent, with the factors in subsection (E)(1) through (12) guiding that placement determination.

Matter of Bennett, Unpublished Decision (3-11-1998) · filed 1998-03-11(B), (E)(1)-(12)

The statute at issue is R.C. 2151.414 . Under this statute, the trial court may grant permanent custody, under R.C. 2151.414 (B), if the court finds clear and convincing evidence that it is in the child's best interest to grant permanent custody and if the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, or should not be placed with their parents. A trial court is to consider the factors contained in R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) through (12) in making this decision. If one or more of these factors are found by clear and convincing evidence, the trial court must enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable amount of time or should not be placed with either parent.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) requires a best-interest finding plus clear and convincing evidence that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time before permanent custody may be granted.

Matter of kell/bess, Unpublished Decision (3-23-1998) · filed 1998-03-23(B)(1), (D)

However, a best interest determination is not sufficient to grant permanent custody of a child to an agency and divest parents of their parental rights. In the instant case, the trial court further found, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1), that Shequeal and Brittanie were not abandoned or orphaned and could not be placed with their parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with their parents.

Section 2151.414 permits permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence shows that a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parents, and subsection (D) identifies best-interest factors the court should consider.

In Re: Romey, Unpublished Decision (3-23-1998) · filed 1998-03-23(B)(1), (D)

R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1) permits a court to grant permanent custody to DHS if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time and or should not be placed with his parents. ... R.C. 2151.414 (D) lists five factors which the court should consider as relevant to the question of the best interest of the child. ... We have reviewed the record, and we find the trial court's judgment is supported by sufficient competent and credible evidence to entitle it to conclude by clear and convincing evidence that Bobby cannot and should not be placed with either parent now or in the future, and that it was in Bobby's best interest to grant permanent custody to DHS.

Section 2151.414 permits permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence shows that custody is in the child's best interest and the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent, with specified best-interest factors and parental-condition criteria considered.

Matter of Campbell, Unpublished Decision (3-26-1998) · filed 1998-03-26(B), (D), and (E)

Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B), the trial court may grant permanent custody to DHS if the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child to do so and if the court finds that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with his parents. In determining the best interest of the child, the trial court must consider all relevant factors, including but not limited to, those enumerated in R.C. 2151.414 (D). Those enumerated factors include, inter alia , the child's interaction and interrelationship with his parents, the wishes of the child as expressed through his guardian ad litem, the custodial history of the child, and the child's need for a legally secure permanent placement. In making the latter determination to grant permanent custody, R.C. 2151.414 (E) requires that the court consider all relevant evidence, finding by clear and convincing evidence, that one or more of eleven enumerated criteria exist.

Section 2151.414(E)(4) permits a finding that a child should not be placed with a parent when the parent shows an unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home, but unwillingness and inability are not synonymous and the finding must unequivocally fit the statutory factor.

In Re Shawnta J., Unpublished Decision (3-31-1998) · filed 1998-03-31(E)(4)

The statute permits entry of a finding that a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent when the parent or parents show, "* * * an unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home for the child." Id. Here, the trial court finds that the mother's failure to cooperate with appellee demonstrates, "* * * an unwillingness or inability * * " to provide an adequate home. As the Supreme Court has noted in reference to this section, " * * it cannot be said that unwilling and unable are synonymous." In re Williams S., supra , at 100. By suggesting alternatively that appellant might be unable to provide an adequate home, the trial court has not unequivocally placed appellant within the statute.

Section 2151.414 permits permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence establishes that custody is in the child's best interest and the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, requiring the court to consider the listed best-interest factors and all relevant evidence, including the listed conditions concerning parental placement.

Matter of E., Unpublished Decision (4-10-1998) · filed 1998-04-10(B)(1), (D), and (E)

R.C. 2151.414 (E) states that the trial court shall consider all relevant evidence in determining whether a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time. It further provides that if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that one or more of eleven listed conditions, or "[a]ny other factor the court considers relevant," exists as to each of the parents, it shall enter a finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time.

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing proof that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and that a statutory ground shows the child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

Matter of McKean, Unpublished Decision (4-22-1998) · filed 1998-04-22(B), (E)(1)-(2)

When determining whether a child should not or cannot be placed with either of his parents within a reasonable time, the trial court is required to find one or more of the facts listed in R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1)-(8) present as to each parent by clear and convincing evidence. ... Consequently, we find that the court had evidence before it on which to base its decision to terminate Steve McKean's parental rights under R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) or (2) by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) requires, in addition to the child’s best interests under subsection (D), a finding that the child is not abandoned or orphaned and cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

Matter of kell/bess, Unpublished Decision (5-4-1998) · filed 1998-05-04(B)(1), (D)

However, a best interest determination is not sufficient to grant permanent custody of a child to an agency and divest parents of their parental rights. In the instant case, the trial court further found, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1), that Shequeal and Brittanie were not abandoned or orphaned and could not be placed with their parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with their parents. ... In light of the foregoing, we find the trial court's finding that Shequeal and Brittanie could not be placed with appellant within a reasonable time or should not be placed with appellant is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Section 2151.414 requires a permanent-custody court to find that custody is in the child's best interest and that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, based on the statutory criteria.

In Re Johnson, Unpublished Decision (6-22-1998) · filed 1998-06-22(A), (B), (D), and (E)

Upon the filing of the permanent custody motion by the Board, the court was required to hold a hearing to decide "if it is the best interest of the child to permanently terminate parental rights and grant permanent custody to the agency that filed the motion." R.C. 2151.414 (A). In order to grant the Board permanent custody, the Board must demonstrate that it is in the best interest of the child and that any of the following apply: (1) The child is not abandoned or orphaned and the child cannot be placed with either of his parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with his parents; (2) The child is abandoned and the parents cannot be located; (3) The child is orphaned and there are no relatives of the child who are able to take permanent custody. R.C. 2151.414 (B). ... If one of these situations apply, "the court shall enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent." Id. ... A thorough review of the record indicates clear and convincing evidence to support the decision of the trial court. ... The trial court's conclusion that appellant was unlikely to be able to provide a stable environment "within a reasonable time" is supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 2151.414 requires permanent custody to be awarded only when it is in the child's best interest and the statutory parental-placement or abandonment/orphanage conditions are satisfied, including a finding under subsection (E) that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

In Re Bell, Unpublished Decision (7-27-1998) · filed 1998-07-27(A)(1), (B), (D), and (E)

When a state agency moves for permanent custody, the trial court is required to hold a hearing to determine "if it is in the best interest of the child to permanently terminate parental rights and grant permanent custody to the agency that filed the motion." R.C. 2151.414 (A)(1). In order to grant permanent custody to a state agency, the agency must demonstrate that it is in the best interest of the child and that any of the following apply: (1) The child is not abandoned or orphaned and the child cannot be placed with either of his parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with his parents; (2) The child is abandoned and the parents cannot be located; (3) The child is orphaned and there are no relatives of the child who are able to take permanent custody. R.C. 2151.414 (B). At a permanent custody hearing, the trial court must consider any relevant factor to a child's best interest. R.C. 2151.414 (D). ... When granting permanent custody to a public children services agency, the trial court also must find that one of the factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414 (E) exist. In re William S. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 95 , syllabus. ... If one of the factors apply, "the court shall enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent." Id. ... Since August 1994, the children have been almost continuously involved with HCDHS and BCCSB and need a permanent home. See R.C. 2151.414 (D)(3) and (4). Accordingly, we find clear and convincing evidence to support the decision of the trial court to terminate appellant's parental rights and grant permanent custody of the children to BCCSB.

Section 2151.414(D) requires a clear-and-convincing best-interest finding, while section 2151.414(E) requires a clear-and-convincing finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time, including when the parent shows a lack of commitment under (E)(4).

Matter of Cranston, Unpublished Decision (8-26-1998) · filed 1998-08-26(D), (E), and (E)(4)

R.C. 2151.414 (D) first requires a court to find by clear and convincing evidence that permanent placement is in the child's best interest. ... R.C. 2151.414 (D) also mandates that the court consider all relevant evidence, including but not limited to the following factors, in order to answer the best interest inquiry: ... R.C. 2151.414 (E) next requires a trial court to find by clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be placed with his parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with his parents. The court must consider whether any of the statute's enumerated factors exist in order to properly enter such a finding. If none of the factors exist, a court may not grant permanent custody to the children's services agency. ... A complete review of the record leads us to answer in the affirmative since at least one of the enumerated factors in R.C. 2151.414 (E) exists in this case. In particular, 2151.414 (E)(4) is applicable because Appellant has demonstrated a "lack of commitment toward the child[ren] by failing to regularly support, visit or communicate with the child[ren] when able to do so, or by other actions showing an unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home for the child[ren]."

Section 2151.414(B)(1) requires more than a best-interest finding for permanent custody: a non-abandoned, non-orphaned child must also be unable to be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or be unsuitable for placement with the parents.

Matter of Heckman, Unpublished Decision (8-31-1998) · filed 1998-08-31(B)(1)

However, a best interest determination is not sufficient to award permanent custody of a child to an agency and divest parents of their parental rights. In the instant case, the trial court further found, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1), the children were not abandoned or orphaned and could not be placed with Mother within a reasonable time or should not be placed with Mother. The record reveals despite the fact Mother participated in numerous services and complied with a significant amount of her case plan, she failed to substantially remedy the problems causing the children to be removed from her home. As such, permanent custody was a proper disposition.

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody serves the child's best interest and that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, with the court considering statutory best-interest and parental-condition factors.

In Re: Delk, Unpublished Decision (10-5-1998) · filed 1998-10-05(D), (E)(1), (E)(2), and (E)(8)

A juvenile court may grant permanent custody to an agency if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the best interest of the child warrants a grant of permanent custody, and that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time. ... In determining the best interest of the child, R.C. 2151.414 -(D) provides that the juvenile court must consider all relevant factors including the following: ... (4) The child's need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to the agency[.] ... In addition to determining Whitney's best interest, the juvenile court is required to assess whether Whitney can be placed with appellant within a reasonable time or not at all. ... The relevant part of R.C. 2151.414 (E) states: (1) Following the placement of the child outside the child's home and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the child's home. 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; (2) Chronic mental illness, chronic emotional illness, mental retardation, physical disability, or chemical dependency of the parent that is so severe that it makes the parent unable to provide an adequate permanent home for the child at the present time and as anticipated, within one year after the court holds [a permanent custody hearing]; * * * (8) The parent is repeatedly incarcerated and the repeated incarceration prevents the parent from providing care for the child[.] (Emphasis added.) ... This lack of effort demonstrates that she "has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions" that gave rise to the removal of Whitney from her custody. ... After considering appellant's inability to deal with her polysubstance abuse, the juvenile court held that Whitney could not be returned into appellant's custody now or within a reasonable time. ... Therefore, we find that the juvenile court properly determined that it was in the best interest of Whitney to grant permanent custody to BCCSB.

Section 2151.414 permits permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence shows that custody is in the child's best interest and the child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time, considering the statutory factors and whether the parent substantially remedied the conditions causing removal.

In Re: Kilby, Unpublished Decision (10-5-1998) · filed 1998-10-05(B)(1), (D), and (E)(1)

If a child is adjudicated a dependent child, a court may grant permanent custody to an agency if the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and the child cannot or should not be placed with either of his parents within a reasonable time. R.C. 2151.353 (A)-(4); R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1). ... A court must find that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that one or more of the statutory factors in R.C. 2151.414 (E) exist. ... In determining the best interest of a child, R.C. 2151.414 (D) provides that a court must consider all relevant factors, including the following: (1) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's parents, siblings, relatives, foster parents and out-of-home providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child; (2) The wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the child or through the child's guardian ad litem, with due regard for the maturity of the child; (3) The custodial history of the child; (4) The child's need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to the agency.

Section 2151.414 permits permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence shows that the award is in the child's best interest and that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, including when a parent has failed to substantially remedy the conditions that caused removal despite reasonable services.

Matter of Victoria H., Unpublished Decision (2-5-1999) · filed 1999-02-05(B), (D), and (E)(1)

The sole potential assignment of error raises the issue of whether the trial court's decision was supported by clear and convincing evidence. ... Clear and convincing evidence is that proof which establishes in the mind of the trier of fact a firm conviction as to the allegations sought to be proved. Cross v. Ledford (1954), 161 Ohio St. 469 . This court has thoroughly reviewed the record of proceedings in the trial court and, upon consideration thereof, we find that there was clear and convincing evidence to support the lower court's finding that it was in the best interest of Heather F. and Johnny F. to grant permanent custody to the Lucas County Children Services Board and in the best interest of Victoria H. to grant legal custody to LCCS.

Section 2151.414(B) permits permanent custody only when clear and convincing evidence shows that it is in the child's best interest and that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time; under (E)(1), failure to substantially remedy the conditions causing removal despite reasonable services supports that placement finding, while (D) requires consideration of the child's best interests.

Matter of Clifte, Unpublished Decision (3-8-1999) · filed 1999-03-08(B), (D), and (E)(1)

Furthermore, R.C. 2151.414 (B) permits a court to award permanent custody to the agency if the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that an award of permanent custody is in the child's best interest, and that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. ... As relevant to this case, R.C. 2151.414 -(E)(2) provides that the court shall enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent if: Following the placement of the child outside the child's home and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the child's home. In determining whether the parents have substantially remedied those conditions, the court shall consider parental utilization of medical, psychiatric, psychological, and other social and rehabilitative services and material resources that were made available to the parents for the purpose of changing parental conduct to allow them to resume and maintain parental duties. ... We find that, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1), clear and convincing evidence supports the finding that appellant failed to follow the case plan, and did not "substantially remedy the conditions causing the children to be placed outside the home." We further find that clear and convincing evidence supports the trial court's finding that it was in the best interest of the children to have permanent custody granted to BCDHS. ... We find pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (D) that clear and convincing evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that it was in the best interest of these children to award permanent custody to BCDHS.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) requires clear and convincing findings that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and that the child cannot or should not be returned to either parent within a reasonable time; under subsection (E), one or more listed factors as to each parent requires that placement finding.

In Re Gibson, Unpublished Decision (4-28-1999) · filed 1999-04-28(B)(1), (E)

The termination of parental rights in a child that is neither abandoned nor orphaned, as in the present case, is governed by R.C. 2151.414 (B). ... Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1), the juvenile court must apply a two-pronged test when determining whether to grant permanent custody of a child to a children's agency. The juvenile court may grant permanent custody to the agency if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the best interest of the child warrants a grant of permanent custody, and the child cannot or should not be returned to either parent within a reasonable time. ... In determining whether a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with either parent, the court must consider all relevant evidence. R.C. 2151.414 (E). However, if the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that one or more of the circumstances enumerated in R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1)-(12) exist as to each of the child's parents, the court must enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. R.C. 2151.414 (E). ... In conclusion, we find sufficient credible evidence to support the trial court's conclusions, and we find that both prongs of the test have been satisfied.

Section 2151.414(B) conditions permanent custody on clear and convincing proof of the child's best interest and a qualifying placement condition, while subsection (D) requires consideration of all relevant best-interest factors.

Matter Of: Yvette Coyne, Unpublished Decision (4-29-1999) · filed 1999-04-29(B) and (D)

In determining if a child or children should be placed in permanent custody, R.C. 2151.414 controls and provides in pertinent part: ... In the case sub judice, the judge considered the evidence presented, weighed the credibility and veracity of each witness, including the agency's expert Dr. Neuhaus, and determined that it would not be in the best interests of Yvette and Angel to have the ties to their parents permanently severed. ... Because of the foregoing, it is clear that the judge did not err in denying the county's motion for permanent custody, and the dismissal, pursuant to Civ.R. 41 (B) (2), was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) permits permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence shows that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time and permanent custody is in the child's best interest; subsection (E)(1) addresses a parent's continuous and repeated failure to remedy the conditions causing removal.

Matter of Betty S., Unpublished Decision (4-30-1999) · filed 1999-04-30(B)(1), (D), (E)(1)

Permanent custody may be awarded if 1) the child cannot be placed with either of the child's parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child's parents, and 2) that a grant of permanent custody of a child to a children's service agency is in the child's best interest. R.C. 2151.414 (B). ... In this case, the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence, that pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1) and (E)(1) Betty "cannot, and should not, be placed with either of her parents within a reasonable period of time." The court also found that pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (D), an award of permanent custody to LCCS is in the child's best interest. ... The record shows that although appellant can act appropriately with the proper supervision and can even learn basic parenting skills by rote memory, she is unable to adapt these skills to new or unexpected events. ... Although appellant may have met the minimum requirements for attendance in her highly supervised parenting classes, she has not demonstrated an ability to safely care for Betty without constant supervision. ... Therefore, we conclude that the judgment of the trial court was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) requires clear and convincing evidence both that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parents; subsection (E)(1) identifies continuous and repeated failure to remedy removal conditions despite agency efforts as a basis for that placement finding.

Matter of Damien Hilbert, Unpublished Decision (5-12-1999) · filed 1999-05-12(B)(1), (E)(1)

However, a best interest determination is insufficient in and of itself to award permanent custody of a child to an agency and to terminate parental parents. ... Based on the foregoing, we find that the trial court's findings that Damien cannot and should not be placed with any parent within a reasonable period of time and that it was in Damien's best interest for appellants' parental rights to be terminated were supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) requires a best-interest finding plus a finding that a nonabandoned, nonorphaned child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time before permanent custody may be granted.

Matter of Jeter, Unpublished Decision (6-7-1999) · filed 1999-06-07(B)(1)

However, a best interest determination is not sufficient to award permanent custody of a child to an agency and divest parents of their parental rights. In the instant case, the trial court further found, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1), the child was not abandoned or orphaned and could not be placed with appellant within a reasonable time or should not be placed with appellant. ... Accordingly, we find permanent custody was a proper disposition.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) requires clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time; under (E), a listed parental condition, including failure to remedy removal conditions under (E)(1), supports that placement finding, and (C) requires written findings only upon a party's request.

In the Matter of Taylor, Unpublished Decision (6-9-1999) · filed 1999-06-09(B)(1), (C), (E)(1), (E)(2), and (E)(8)

At the time of the filing of the motions for permanent custody, R.C. 2151.414 (B) 1 provided in relevant part that: " * * * the court determine, * * * by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody of the child to the agency that filed the motion for permanent custody and that any of the following apply: "(1) the child is not abandoned or orphaned and the child cannot be placed with either of his parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with his parents ;" ... R.C. 2151.414 (E) provided that a court must enter a finding that the children cannot or should not be placed with the parents within a reasonable time if clear and convincing evidence of any one of a list of enumerated circumstances exist. ... Based upon the record, competent, credible evidence existed whereby the court could have found clearly and convincingly that Appellant had repeatedly and continuously failed to remedy the conditions causing removal of her children under R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1). Competent, credible evidence existed to find that Appellant's lower functioning level coupled with her lack of motivation and the children's special needs rendered her unable to provide a permanent home under R.C. 2151.414 (E)(2) and unwilling to prevent the children from suffering physical, emotional or mental neglect under R.C. 2151.414 (E)(8). ... Absent a request by a party, a juvenile court's failure to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law or statutory determinations within its judgment entry is not error.

Section 2151.414 permits an agency to receive permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence shows that custody is in the child's best interest and the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

In Re McKinney, Unpublished Decision (7-12-1999) · filed 1999-07-12(B), (B)(1), (D), and (E)

The juvenile court may grant permanent custody to an agency if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the best interest of the child warrants a grant of permanent custody, and that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

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

In Re: Coriena Miller, Unpublished Decision (7-16-1999) · filed 1999-07-16(B)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1) provides that the court may grant permanent custody of a child to a public children services agency if, following a hearing, it determines by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interests of the child to grant permanent custody to the agency and that the child cannot be placed with either of the child's parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child's parents.

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence of an enumerated parental-placement factor and a finding that permanent custody is in the child's best interest before permanent custody is awarded.

In Re Ellis, Unpublished Decision (8-27-1999) · filed 1999-08-27(B), (D), and (E)

As to the issue of whether the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent, the trial court must find by clear and convincing evidence that one of the factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414 (E) exists. ... Appellant's failure to substantially comply with the provisions of the case plan as set forth in the record in the case at bar establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory requirements set forth in R.C. 2151.414 were met. Pursuant to the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414 (D), the record establishes that it would be in the children's best interest to be placed with CSB rather than return home.

Section 2151.414(D) requires clear and convincing proof that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and consideration of relevant factors, while § 2151.414(E)(1) requires a finding that the parent continuously and repeatedly failed to substantially remedy the removal conditions despite reasonable case planning and diligent agency efforts.

In the Matter Of: Alicia Zechman, Unpublished Decision (9-1-1999) · filed 1999-09-01(D), (E)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 (D) first requires a court to find by clear and convincing evidence that permanent placement is in the child's best interest. ... R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) requires that a parent be divested of permanent custody if: Following placement of the child outside of 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 of the child's home. ... Upon reviewing the record, we find that the trial court's decision with regard to this factor is clearly supported by the evidence presented at the hearing. Thus, at least one of the enumerated factors of R.C. 2151.414 (E) exists as to each biological parent in the present case.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) requires clear and convincing evidence of both the child’s best interest and that a nonabandoned, nonorphaned child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parents before permanent custody may be granted.

In Re Haley, Unpublished Decision (11-8-1999) · filed 1999-11-08(B)(1)

However, a best interests determination is not sufficient to award permanent custody of a child to an agency and divest parents of their parental rights. In the instant case, the trial court further found, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1), Morgan was not abandoned or orphaned, and could not be placed with mother or father within a reasonable time, or should not be placed with mother and father. The record reveals despite the fact mother and father participated in numerous services and complied with most of their case plans, mother and father failed to substantially remedy the problems causing Morgan to be removed from their home, and, more importantly, failed to acknowledge their responsibility for those problems. As such, we find permanent custody was a proper disposition.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) permits permanent custody to an agency when, in addition to the child's best interest, the child is not abandoned or orphaned and cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

In Re: Poletsky-Mingle, Unpublished Decision (12-6-1999) · filed 1999-12-06(B)(1)

However, a best interest determination is not sufficient to grant permanent custody of a child to an agency and divest parents of their parental rights. In the instant case, the trial court further found, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B) (1), Cheyenne and Dakota were not abandoned or orphaned and could not be placed with mother within a reasonable time or should not be placed with mother. ... Based upon the foregoing, we find the trial court's finding it was in Cheyenne and Dakota's best interests to grant permanent custody to SCDHS and finding the children could not be placed with mother within a reasonable period or should not be placed with mother are not against the manifest weight or the sufficiency of the evidence.

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing proof that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, with the listed best-interest and parental-conduct factors guiding those findings.

In Re Venters, Unpublished Decision (12-30-1999) · filed 1999-12-30(B)(1)(a), (D), and (E)(4)

A juvenile court shall grant permanent custody to an agency if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the best interest of the child warrants a grant of permanent custody and that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parents. ... In addition to determining the child's best interest, the juvenile court must determine whether the child can be placed with a parent within a reasonable time. R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a). The court shall enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time if any factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414 (E) apply, including the following: ... The parent 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; ... Appellant's shortcomings in this regard reflect a lack of commitment toward Mark by failing to regularly support, visit, or communicate with him. See R.C. 2151.414 (E)(4). ... We find that the trial court made its findings according to the statutory guidelines of R.C. 2151.414 and that these findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence.

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

In Re Griffin, Unpublished Decision (12-27-1999) · filed 1999-12-27(B)(1)

The juvenile court may grant permanent custody to an agency if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the best interest of the child warrants a grant of permanent custody, and that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time. R.C. 2151.414 (B) and (B)(1); In re Egbert Children (1994), 99 Ohio App.3d 492 , 495 .

Section 2151.414 permits permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence shows that it is in the child's best interest and the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time under the relevant parental-condition criteria.

In the Matter of McCune, Unpublished Decision (3-28-2000) · filed 2000-03-28(B), (D), and (E)

R.C. 2151.414 (E) sets out the factors relevant to determining permanent custody. ... R.C. 2151.414 (B) enables the court to grant permanent custody if the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child. R.C. 2151.414 (D) sets out the factors relevant to determining the best interests of the child. ... By failing to complete the case plan in a reasonable time and in particular, failing to support the children, provide stable housing and successfully complete the required programs, both parents have demonstrated that it is not in the children's best interests to be in the custody of either parent. ... Based upon the parents' failure to complete the case plan, we find there was clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's decision to grant permanent custody of the children to appellee.

Section 2151.414 requires a juvenile court to grant an agency permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence shows that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, considering the statutory factors.

In Re Stapleton, Unpublished Decision (4-3-2000) · filed 2000-04-03(B)(1), (B)(1)(a), (D), (E)(1), (E)(2), and (E)(4)

A juvenile court shall grant permanent custody to an agency if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the best interest of the child warrants a grant of permanent custody and that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parents. ... We find that the trial court made its findings according to the statutory guidelines of R.C. 2151.414 and that these findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 2151.414(B) requires clear and convincing proof that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time.

In Re Hogue, Unpublished Decision (4-26-2000) · filed 2000-04-26(B)

In cases not involving an abandoned or adopted child, a trial court must find, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody, and that the child cannot or should not be placed with either of the child's parents within a reasonable period of time. R.C. 2151.414 (B).

Section 2151.414 requires clear-and-convincing proof that permanent custody is in the child’s best interest and that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time; one enumerated placement factor is sufficient.

In Re Reeves, Unpublished Decision (6-7-2000) · filed 2000-06-07(B)(1), (D), (E)(1)-(12)

Before a juvenile court can terminate parental rights and award permanent custody of a child who is neither abandoned nor orphaned to a proper moving agency, it must find by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child; and (2) the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. See In re William S. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 95 , 99 ; see also, R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1). ... When a juvenile court determines the best interest of a child, for purposes of ruling on a motion for permanent custody, it is required to consider all relevant evidence, including, but not limited to: (1) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's parents, siblings, relatives, foster parents and out-of-home providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child; (2) The wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the child or through the child's guardian ad litem, with due regard for the maturity of the child; (3) The custodial history of the child; [and] (4) The child's need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to the agency. R.C. 2151.414 (D). ... When a juvenile court determines, for purposes of ruling on a motion for permanent custody, whether a child cannot be placed with either of his parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with his parents, it is to consider all relevant evidence. R.C. 2151.414 (E). ... If it finds, however, by clear and convincing evidence, the existence of one or more of the circumstances enumerated in R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) through (12), then it is required to rule that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. ... It is important to note, however, that each and every condition of R.C. 2151.414 (E) does not have to exist before a court may terminate parental rights. ... Rather, the court may make its decision based on the existence of only one of the factors. Id. at *11-12.

Section 2151.414 requires a court deciding permanent custody to find by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child’s best interest and that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent, considering relevant statutory factors and circumstances.

In Re Campbell · filed 2000-06-08(B), (D), (E)(1), and (E)(4)

Applying R.C. 2151.414(B), as effective on the date of FCCS’ motion for permanent custody, the trial court was required to consider all relevant factors in determining the best interest of the child, including, but not limited to, the following: ... “(4) The child’s need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to the agency[.]” R.C. 2151.414(D). ... The second element of R.C. 2151.414(B) applicable here requires that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parents. In assessing that factor, R.C. 2151.414(E) requires the trial court to consider all relevant evidence and to find that one of the circumstances provided for in the statute exist. ... Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), FCCS must diligently attempt to assist the parents to remedy the problems that caused the child’s initial placement into FCCS’ custody.

Section 2151.414 permits permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence shows that it is in the child's best interest and that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, based on relevant statutory factors.

In the Matter of Benbow, Unpublished Decision (6-21-2000) · filed 2000-06-21(B), (D), and (E)

R.C. 2151.414 (E) sets out the factors relevant to determining permanent custody. ... R.C. 2151.414 (B) enables the court to grant permanent custody if the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child. R.C. 2151.414 (D) sets out the factors relevant to determining the best interests of the child. ... By failing to complete the case plan in a reasonable time and in particular, failing to complete the required psychological assessments, failing to apply what they have learned in parent education during visits with the children, failing to participate in education programs for parents of children who have been sexually abused, failing to acknowledge Kenneth's behavior and failing to successfully participate in counseling with the children, both appellant and Mr. Holt have demonstrated that it is not in the children's best interests to be in their custody. We find there was clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's decision to grant permanent custody of the children to appellee.

Section 2151.414 requires a juvenile court to use clear and convincing evidence to find permanent custody in the child's best interest, determine that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, consider parental use of offered services, and weigh relevant best-interest factors.

In the Matter Hitchcock, Unpublished Decision (6-22-2000) · filed 2000-06-22(B), (D), and (E)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 governs the termination of parental rights where, as here, the child is neither abandoned nor orphaned. In determining whether to terminate parental rights and grant permanent custody to CCDCFS pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B), the juvenile court must find by clear and convincing evidence that: 1) the grant of permanent custody to the petitioning agency is in the best interest of the child and 2) the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time. ... The trial court, after considering whether the parents have substantiallyremedied the conditions which caused the children to be placed outside the home, is required to 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. R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1). ... We find that the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the conclusion that appellant has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing these children to be placed outside their home. ... In determining the best interests of the children, it can be said that the trial court considered the relevant factors, including the interaction and interrelationship of the children with the parents, siblings, and foster parents; the wishes of the children as expressed through the guardian ad litem; the custodial history of the children and the children's need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to the agency. See R.C. 2151.414 (D)(1)-(4). ... Accordingly, we find that clear and convincing evidence was presented to the trial court to support both its conclusion that appellant had failed to remedy the conditions which prompted the removal of her children from her home four years earlier and its conclusion that granting permanent custody to CCDCFS was in the best interest of each child involved in this matter.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) permits permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence shows that it is in the child's best interest and the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, while subsections (D)(4) and (E) identify relevant placement and parental-conduct factors.

In Re Diamond H., Unpublished Decision (8-15-2000) · filed 2000-08-15(B)(1), (D)(4), (E)(1), (E)(4), (E)(11), and (E)(16)

R.C. 2151.414 provides in pertinent part: "(B) The court may grant permanent custody of a child to a movant if the court determines at the hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this section, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody of the child to the agency that filed the motion for permanent custody and that any of the following apply : "(1) The child is not abandoned or orphaned and the child cannot be placed with either of the child's parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child's parents; * * *" ... Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (D), in determining the best interest of a child, the trial court shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to: "(4) The child's need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to the agency." ... Further, R.C. 2151.414 (E) states that: "(E) In determining * * * whether a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with the parents, the court shall consider all relevant evidence. If the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence , at a hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this section or for the purposes of division (A)(4) of section 2151.353 [2151.35.3] of the Revised Code that one or more of the following exist as to each of the child's parents, the court shall enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent: "(1) Following the placement of the child outside his home and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the child's home. ... "(4) The parent has demonstrated a lack of commitment toward the child by * * * actions showing an unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home for the child. ... "(11) The parent has had parental rights involuntarily terminated pursuant to section 2151.353 * * * of the Revised Code with respect to the sibling of the child. ... "(16) Any other factor the court considers relevant." This court has thoroughly reviewed the record of proceedings in the trial court and, upon consideration thereof and the law, we find that there was clear and convincing evidence to support the lower court's finding that it was in the best interest of Diamond H. to grant permanent custody to Lucas County Children Services Board.

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, based on the statutory factors.

In Re Robert Creel, Jr., Unpublished Decision (9-20-2000) · filed 2000-09-20(B)(1), (D), and (E)

Before a juvenile court can terminate parental rights and award to a proper moving agency permanent custody of a child, who is neither abandoned nor orphaned, it must find by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414 (D), and that (2) the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414 (E).

Section 2151.414 permits permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence shows that it is in the child's best interest and that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time; failure to remedy the conditions causing removal and lack of parental commitment support that placement finding.

In Re Neal, Unpublished Decision (11-6-2000) · filed 2000-11-06(B), (D), (E)(1), and (E)(4)

R.C. 2151.414 (B) states in part that the court may grant permanent custody to the movant if the court determines at a hearing, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody of the child to the agency and that, if the child is not abandoned or orphaned, the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with his/her parents. ... We have set forth the language in R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) and (4) because those are the subsections the trial court found were applicable to the case sub judice. ... Based on the foregoing, we find that there was clear and convincing evidence that Tyler cannot be placed with appellant within a reasonable time, or should not be placed with appellant.

Section 2151.414 requires a juvenile court to find that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent when clear and convincing evidence establishes a listed condition, and to consider the child's best interest before awarding permanent custody.

In the Matter Of: Bailey D., Unpublished Decision (4-17-1998) · filed 1998-04-17(D), (E)(1), and (E)(4)

At a hearing on a complaint requesting permanent custody of a child, the children services agency must establish that one or more of the conditions listed in R.C. 2151.414 (E) exists as to each of the child's parents. If, after considering all the relevant evidence, the court determines that one or more of the conditions listed in R.C. 2151.414 (E) exists, the court can and must enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with either of his or her parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with his or her parents. Finally, under R.C. 2151.414 (D), a juvenile court must consider the best interest of the child by examining factors relevant to that case. A nonexclusive list of factors relevant to the best interest of the child is found in R.C. 2151.414 (D) 1 . Only if each of these requisites are supported by clear and convincing evidence, can a juvenile court terminate the rights of a natural parent and award permanent custody of a child to a children services agency. ... Therefore, clear and convincing evidence supports the juvenile court's determination that Bailey could not be placed with Roberto within a reasonable time.

Section 2151.414(E) requires a clear-and-convincing-evidence finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time when one or more listed conditions exists for each parent, including failure to remedy the conditions causing removal or incarceration for an offense against the child or a sibling.

Matter of Colvin, Unpublished Decision (7-21-1998) · filed 1998-07-21(E)

The determination of whether a child may be placed with either parent within a reasonable time is governed by R.C. 2151.414 (E). ... From these findings, the trial court concluded that Appellant had failed to substantially remedy the conditions which necessitated the removal of the children from the home. These findings are supported by the testimony of the various witnesses. ... Thus, the evidence supported the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, with the latter finding supported by specified parental conditions such as failure to remedy problems or severe mental illness.

In Re Fetters, Unpublished Decision (8-3-1998) · filed 1998-08-03(B)(1), (D), (E)(1), (E)(2)

If a child is adjudicated a dependent child, a court may grant permanent custody to an agency if the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and the child cannot or should not be placed with either of his parents within a reasonable time. ... A court must find that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that one or more of the statutory factors in R.C. 2151.414 (E) exist. ... Thus, the record contains clear and convincing evidence that appellant, due to her mental and emotional problems, cannot provide an adequate home for Breona at the present time or within one year after the trial court held the adjudicatory hearing. Accordingly, we find that R.C. 2151.414 (E)(2) supports the trial court's determination that Breona cannot or should not be placed with appellant within a reasonable period of time. ... Accordingly, we conclude that R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) also supports the trial court's determination that Breona cannot or should not be placed with appellant within a reasonable time. ... In determining the best interest of a child, R.C. 2151.414 (D) provides that a court must consider all relevant factors, including the following: ... Thus, the evidence presented indicates that a permanent and stable home for Breona cannot be achieved without permanent custody being granted to BCCSB. Accordingly, we find that the trial court's decision to grant permanent custody to BCCSB was in Breona's best interest and supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 2151.414 permits permanent custody only when clear and convincing evidence supports the child’s best interest and the inability to place the child with either parent within a reasonable time, with the court considering relevant best-interest factors and listed parental conditions.

In Re Bowling, Unpublished Decision (9-21-1998) · filed 1998-09-21(D), (E)(1), (E)(9)

A juvenile court may grant permanent custody to an agency if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the best interest of the child warrants a grant of permanent custody, and that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time. ... In determining the best interest of the child, R.C. 2151.414 (D) provides that the juvenile court must consider all relevant factors including the following: ... (4) The child’s need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to the agency. ... The relevant part of R.C. 2151.414 (E) states: (1) Following the placement of the child outside the child’s home and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the child’s home. 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. * * * (9) The parent for any reason is unwilling to provide food, clothing, shelter, and other basic necessities for the child or to prevent the child from suffering physical, emotional, or sexual abuse, or physical, emotional, or mental neglect. (Emphasis added.) ... This lack of effort demonstrates that she "has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions" that gave rise to the removal of Clyde and Gary, Jr. from her custody. Further, there was expert testimony that stated that appellant is unwilling or is unable to provide the basic necessities for her sons and her unchanged conduct will be detrimental to the boys’ physical and mental well-being. Therefore, the record supports the juvenile court’s decision that appellant does not have the capacity to parent her children.

Section 2151.414 requires a court deciding a permanent-custody motion to find that permanent custody is in the child’s best interest and that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent, considering the statutory best-interest factors and any other relevant factor.

In the Matter Of: Brock, Unpublished Decision (10-5-1998) · filed 1998-10-05(A)(1), (B), (D), (E)(1), (E)(4), (E)(12)

When a state agency moves for permanent custody, the trial court is required to hold a hearing to determine "if it is in the best interest of the child to permanently terminate parental rights and grant permanent custody to the agency that filed the motion." R.C. 2151.414 (A)(1). ... In order to grant permanent custody to a state agency, the agency must demonstrate that it is in the best interest of the child and that any of the following apply: (1) The child is not abandoned or orphaned and the child cannot be placed with either of his parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with his parents; (2) The child is abandoned and the parents cannot be located; (3) The child is orphaned and there are no relatives of the child who are able to take permanent custody. R.C. 2151.414 (B). ... At a permanent custody hearing, the trial court shall consider all factors relevant to the child's best interest. R.C. 2151.414 -(D). ... When granting permanent custody to a public children services agency, the trial court also must find that one of the factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414 (E) exist. ... The factors include: (1) Following the placement of the child outside the child's home and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the child's home. * * * * * * (4) The parent 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. * * * (12) Any other factor the court considers relevant. R.C. 2151.414 (E). If one of the factors apply, "the court shall enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent." Id. ... Appellant's refusal or inability to permanently separate from Dunn was a significant factor for the magistrate to consider. See R.C. 2151.414 (E)(12). ... Based on the totality of the evidence presented, we conclude that clear and convincing evidence existed that Christina could not be returned to appellant within a reasonable time. The decision to terminate appellant's parental rights and grant WCCS permanent custody of Christina was in the child's best interest.

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, with the court considering the factors in (D) and the listed conditions in (E).

In Re Clinton, Unpublished Decision (2-16-1999) · filed 1999-02-16(D), (E)(1), (E)(4), (E)(12)

In determining the best interests of the child, R.C. 2151.414 -(D) provides that the juvenile court must consider all relevant factors including: (1) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's parents, siblings, relatives, foster parents and out-of-home providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child. (2) The wishes of the child * * * (3) The custodial history of the child. (4) The child's need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to the agency. ... The relevant part of R.C. 2151.414 (E) states: (1) Following the placement of the child outside the child's home and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the child's home. 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. * * * (4) The parent 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. * * * (12) Any other factor the court considers relevant. If one of the factors apply, "the court shall enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent." Id.

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing proof that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, with the court considering relevant best-interest factors; under subsection (E)(1), a parent's continuous and repeated failure to remedy the conditions causing removal supports the placement finding.

Matter of jenkins/williams, Unpublished Decision (5-14-1999) · filed 1999-05-14(B), (D), and (E)(1)

A child who has been adjudicated dependent may be committed to the permanent custody of a public children services agency or a private child placing agency if the trial court determines, in accordance with R.C. 2151.414 (E), that the child cannot be placed with one of his parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent and that the "permanent commitment is in the best interest of the child." R.C. 2151.353 (A)(4); R.C. 2151.414 (B). ... In this case, the trial court found that the circumstances described in R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1), (2), (3), (4), and (9) existed. ... Without deciding whether the trial court's findings on the existence of the circumstances listed in R.C. 2151.414 (E)(2), (3), (4), and (9) were adequately supported by the evidence, its finding pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) that Jenkins had failed continuously and repeatedly to remedy the situation that caused the initial removal of the children from her home was supported by clear and convincing evidence. ... Furthermore, the trial court acted well within its discretion in concluding that permanent commitment was in the children's best interest based on its findings that Jenkins had maintained a "sporadic and disjointed parent/child relationship," that the children could probably be adopted and raised in a nurturing home environment, that Jenkins could adequately care for the children only with constant adult supervision, and that the guardian ad litem had recommended permanent custody. ... Thus, the trial court acted appropriately in awarding permanent custody to the CCDHS.