Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2151.414

Section 2151.414(B) requires clear and convincing evidence of the child's best interest and that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, while subsections (D) and (E) direct the court to consider specified best-interest and parental-condition factors.

Matter of Saldana, Unpublished Decision (5-24-1999) · filed 1999-05-24(B), (D)(1), (D)(3), (D)(4), (E)(1), (E)(2)

Under R.C. 2151.414 (B), a court may not award permanent custody unless the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child and that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parents. R.C. 2151.414 (B) (1). ... In determining whether a child cannot be placed with the parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parents, R.C. 2151.414 (E) requires the court to determine by clear and convincing evidence that one or more of sixteen enumerated factors exist as to each of the child's parents, including (1) Following the placement of the child out side 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[.] ... Based upon the foregoing, we find competent, credible evidence to support the trial court's determination that Amanda could not be placed with appellant within a reasonable time or should not be placed with appellant. This finding was not against the weight of the evidence. ... R.C. 2151.414 (B) also requires the trial court to make a best interest determination. In determining whether permanent custody is in the child's best interest, the court must consider all relevant factors, including those listed in R.C. 2151.414 (D) as follows: (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; * * * (3) The custodial history of the child * * *; (4) The child's need for legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to the agency[.] Due to her medical needs, Amanda has spent only two weeks of her life in appellant's care. Most of Amanda's life has been spent in the hospital or in foster care. With the shunt in Amanda's head and the fragile state of her respiratory and digestive systems, Amanda requires monitoring twenty-four hours a day. Amanda's foster mother, with her twenty-three years of nursing experience, is able and willing to provide the necessary medical treatment. Amanda needs legally secure permanent placement which can only be achieved through a grant of permanent custody. ... Though appellant has demonstrated that she wishes to care for Amanda, we find competent, credible evidence supporting the trial court's determination that granting permanent custody to CCDHS is in Amanda's best interest. The trial court's determination was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Section 2151.414(E)(12) allows a trial court to consider any other relevant factor when deciding whether a child can or should be placed with a parent within a reasonable time, even if the parent substantially complied with the case plan.

In Re: Joshua Burmeister, Unpublished Decision (6-16-1999) · filed 1999-06-16(E)(12)

As a result of the amendment to R.C. 2151.414 (E), substantial compliance with the case plan does not preclude the trial court from granting permanent custody. Instead, assuming arguendo that Lavera had substantially remedied the conditions causing Joshua to be placed outside the home, the trial court had the discretion to consider "any other factor" that it considered relevant to the issue of whether Joshua could be placed with Lavera.

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

In Matter of M., Unpublished Decision (7-9-1999) · filed 1999-07-09(B), (D), (E)

In determining the best interest of a child, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, a list of factors found in R.C. 2151.414 (D) 1 . In addition, the court must determine, by clear and convincing evidence, that one or more of the predicate conditions in R.C. 2151.414 (E) exists, and, if so, 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.

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 be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parents, with the court considering the relevant evidence and subsection (E) factors.

Matter of Hiles, Unpublished Decision (7-12-1999) · filed 1999-07-12(B)(1), (E)

The court may not award permanent custody unless the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child and that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parents. R.C. 2151.414 (B) (1). In determining whether a child cannot placed with the parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parents, the court must consider all relevant evidence, and the enumerated factors outlined in R.C. 2151.414 (E).

Section 2151.414(D) requires the court to consider relevant best-interest factors, while subsection (E) requires a finding that reunification is not viable when specified parental conditions persist.

In Re: Rodney Capps, Unpublished Decision (8-2-1999) · filed 1999-08-02(D), (E)

In determining the best interest of the child, R.C. 2151.414 (D) requires the trial court to consider all relevant factors, including the following: 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; ... 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[.] ... Based on the foregoing, we find that the evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that the juvenile court properly considered the children's best interest, and supports the juvenile court's finding that the children could not be placed with appellants within a reasonable time. Therefore, we find that the juvenile court properly granted BCCSB permanent custody of the Capps children.

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing proof that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and directs the court to consider relevant best-interest factors and whether the child can or should be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

Matter of Michael M., Unpublished Decision (9-3-1999) · filed 1999-09-03(B), (D), and (E)

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 Michael M. to grant permanent custody to Lucas County Children Services. ... Accordingly, this court finds that: 1) in determining the best interest of Michael M., the trial court considered the relevant factors pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (D) and the trial court's decision was in Michael's best interest and 2) the trial court's decision was supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 2151.414(B) requires clear and convincing findings that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, while subsection (D) requires consideration of specified best-interest factors.

In the Matter of Harper, Unpublished Decision (11-10-1999) · filed 1999-11-10(B), (D)

In cases not involving an abandoned or orphaned child, a trial court is required to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody and (2) that the child cannot or should not be placed with either of the child's parents within a reasonable time. ... In determining whether permanent custody is in the child's best interest, a trial court, shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, 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. R.C. 2151.414 (D) 1 .

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing proof 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; a finding under subsection (E) establishes the latter requirement.

Matter of Wade, Unpublished Decision (11-17-1999) · filed 1999-11-17(B)(1), (D), (E)

This is a two-part inquiry, requiring courts to determine by clear and convincing evidence (1) if the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, and (2) whether it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody to the petitioning agency.

Under § 2151.414, permanent custody may be granted when clear and convincing evidence shows that it is in the child's best interest and a qualifying statutory condition exists, including that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent, and only one applicable factor under division (E) is required.

In Re Baby Boy Eddy, Unpublished Decision (12-6-1999) · filed 1999-12-06(E)(1), (E)(5), (E)(6), (B), (D)

A trial court need not require social workers to endure limitless attempted contacts in order to make a finding of diligent agency efforts under the statute. We find that FCCS presented sufficient competent and credible evidence upon which the fact finder could base its decision that the agency engaged in reasonable case planning and diligent efforts in light of appellant's apparent lack of cooperation. ... Moreover, "[u]nder R.C. 2151.414 (E), only one of the subsections need apply to the parent for a determination to be made that the children cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable time." ... We find no error in the trial court's application of R.C. 2151.414 (E)(5). ... The record and exhibits portray appellant as a seriously deficient parent who, even while serving a felony sentence for the criminal endangerment of Adam's siblings, refused to take even the initial step of developing any communication with FCCS. Despite appellant's attempts to duck behind this self-imposed wall of disinterest, the record supports the trial court's conclusion that Adam could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with the parents, and that permanent custody would be in Adam's best interest.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) 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 Baker, Unpublished Decision (7-12-1999) · filed 1999-07-12(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.

Section 2151.414(D) requires a best-interest determination, and § 2151.414(E)(4) and (11) permit a court to find that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent based on the parent's unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home and prior involuntary termination of rights to siblings.

In the Matter of Aaron C., Unpublished Decision (1-7-2000) · filed 2000-01-07(D), (E)(4), (E)(11)

In our view, these findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence. We further find clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that granting permanent custody of Aaron to LCCS is in the child's best interest.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) requires the juvenile court to determine whether a child can be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, and Section 2151.414(D) requires consideration of all relevant best-interest factors, including those listed in subsections (1) through (4).

In Re Harper, Unpublished Decision (2-16-2000) · filed 2000-02-16(B)(1), (D)

R.C. 2151.414 sets forth the guidelines that a juvenile court must follow when considering a motion for permanent custody. The threshold inquiry in this case was whether the children could be placed with either of their parents within a reasonable time. ... Having found that the children could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, the juvenile court then had to determine whether termination of parental rights and a grant of permanent custody was in the best interests of the children. Under R.C. 2151.414 (D), the court was required to consider all relevant factors, including but not limited to those enumerated in subsections (1) through (4).

Section 2151.414(B) permits permanent custody only when clear and convincing evidence establishes that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and a listed condition applies; section 2151.414(E) supplies predicate conditions for finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

In the Matter of Robert R., Unpublished Decision (2-25-2000) · filed 2000-02-25(B), (D), (E)(1), (E)(4), (E)(9)

R.C. 2151.414 (B) provides that: "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: ..." Additionally, the trial court must determine, by clear and convincing evidence, that one or more of the predicate conditions in R.C. 2151.414 (E) exists, and, if so, the trial court shall enter a finding that the child or children cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. ... In the instant case, the trial court found that the facts established the predicate conditions under R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1), (4) and (9). ... Based upon the foregoing, and after careful review of the record in this case, we find that clear and convincing evidence exists to support the trial court's conclusion that it was in the best interests of Robert, Devin and Elizabeth to be placed in the custody of LCCSB and that the children cannot, or should not, be placed with appellants within a reasonable time.

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

In Re Reid, Unpublished Decision (3-23-2000) · filed 2000-03-23(B)

R.C. 2151.414 (B) provides that a court may grant a motion for permanent custody if the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) permanent custody is in the best interest of the child and (2) the child cannot be placed with either of his parents within a reasonable period of time or the child should not be placed with his parents.

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 best-interest and placement factors.

In Re Mason, Unpublished Decision (4-6-2000) · filed 2000-04-06(B), (D), and (E)

The cornerstone of judicial proceedings to terminate parental rights and then establish new parental rights in adoptive parents is R.C. 2151.414 (B): (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; (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. Clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the best interests of the child is required. R.C. 2151.414 (B). ... In light of the record, including appellant's admissions to numerous recent problems with the law, including felony convictions, his admission to his drug addiction and involvement in a burglary scheme, wherein stolen property was later exchanged for cash and cocaine, his choice of living environment during his period of non-incarceration in 1997, and his complete failure to provide child support for Dylan, we find no error in the trial court's conclusions based upon R.C. 2151.414 (E). ... Clearly, from an examination of the entire history of this father, the test of best interests of the child and inability to place the child with either parent within a reasonable time has been met. ... The trial court neither abused its discretion nor acted contrary to law in terminating parental rights and granting permanent custody of Dylan Mason to Fairfield County Children's Services.

Section 2151.414 requires a court deciding permanent custody to consider the child’s best interest and whether the child can be placed with a parent within a reasonable time, using the statutory factors.

In Re King, Unpublished Decision (4-24-2000) · filed 2000-04-24(B), (B)(1), (D), and (E)

When the evidence considered pertains to specific statutory findings which the trial court is required to make, the reviewing court must look to see whether the trial court followed the enumerated factors in making its determination, or whether the trial court deviated from the statutory criteria. ... In making its determination, the trial court must consider all relevant evidence. If the trial court finds that any of the statutory factors are present, the trial court must find that the child cannot or should not be placed with the parent. R.C. 2151.414 (E). ... The trial court correctly found by clear and convincing evidence that Julie could not be reunited with Teslya within a reasonable time. Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's finding that it was in Teslya's best interest to be placed in the permanent custody of BCCSB.

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 relevant statutory factors.

In Re Schupbach Children, Unpublished Decision (7-6-2000) · filed 2000-07-06(B), (D), and (E)(1)

However, a best interest determination is not sufficient standing alone 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), the children could not or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time. In reaching this determination, the trial court relied on R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1), even though the statutory section was not explicitly stated in the entry. We find the decision of the trial court to grant permanent custody to TCDHS was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. ... We find appellants' assertion the trial court failed to consider the factors set forth in the statute to be without merit. Our review of the record indicates evidence was taken as to each and every factor. Further, and perhaps most important, the trial court specifically stated it considered all relevant factors as stated in R.C. 2151.414 . ... The fact the trial court did not specifically mention each of the factors listed in R.C. 2151.414 (D) does not mean the trial court did not consider such factors. In the absence of demonstrable evidence to the contrary, and given the presumption of regularity, we find the trial court did consider each of the relevant statutory factors. This position is bolstered by the trial court's specific recitation the statutory factors were considered.

Section 2151.414 requires a court deciding permanent custody to make two separate clear-and-convincing-evidence findings: that permanent placement is in the child's best interest and that a statutory ground for permanent custody applies.

In the Matter of Caleb McDuffie, Unpublished Decision (8-17-2000) · filed 2000-08-17(B)(1)

A trial court's decision to grant permanent custody under R.C. 2151.353 must be in accordance with R.C. 2151.414 , wherein a trial court may only grant a motion for permanent custody if two separate and distinct determinations are made. Initially, the trial court must determine, by clear and convincing evidence, if permanent placement is in the best interest of the child. See R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1). ... Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1), upon determining that permanent placement is in the best interest of the child, the trial court must then find, by clear and convincing evidence, that any of the following apply: (a) The child is not abandoned or orphaned or has not been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period ending on or after March 18, 1999, and the child cannot be placed with either of the child's parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child's parents. (b) The child is abandoned. (c) The child is orphaned, and there are no relatives of the child who are able to take permanent custody. (d) The child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period ending on or after March 18, 1999.

Section 2151.414(E) requires a court to find that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time when clear and convincing evidence establishes one or more listed factors for each parent.

In the Matter of Faith Collins, Unpublished Decision (8-24-2000) · filed 2000-08-24(B), (D), and (E)

Having determined that permanent placement of the children with FCCS is in their best interests, the trial court was then required to determine whether the children could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parents. R.C. 2151.414 (E) provides that in making such a determination, the court must consider all relevant evidence. If the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that one or more of the enumerated factors exist as to each of the children's parents, the court must enter a finding that the children cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent.

Section 2151.414(B) requires clear and convincing evidence of both the child's best interest in permanent custody and the statutory basis for finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

In the Matter of Ranker, Unpublished Decision (10-06-2000) · filed 2000-10-06(B)

Following the hearing on the motion for permanent custody, R.C. 2151.414 (B) permits the juvenile court to grant permanent custody of the child to the human service 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 to the agency; and (2) 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. Accordingly, R.C. 2151.414 (B) establishes a two-pronged analysis that the juvenile court must apply when ruling on a motion for permanent custody.

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

In Re Newsome, Unpublished Decision (10-11-2000) · filed 2000-10-11(B)(1), (D), and (E)

Thus, 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 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 requires clear-and-convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and directs the court to consider the subsection (E) placement factors and subsection (D) best-interest factors.

In the Matter of Wood, Unpublished Decision (11-6-2000) · filed 2000-11-06(B), (D), (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. ... Given all of the unrefuted testimony, we find sufficient credible evidence in the record to substantiate this finding. ... Upon review, 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(D) requires the court to consider relevant best-interest factors, and § 2151.414(E)(1) requires a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent when, despite reasonable case planning and diligent agency efforts, the parent continuously and repeatedly fails to substantially remedy the conditions causing removal.

In Re Mauzy Children, Unpublished Decision (11-13-2000) · filed 2000-11-13(D), (E)(1)

The trial court's written findings of fact and conclusions of law clearly reveal that the statutory "best interest" factors were duly considered. ... We therefore conclude that the trial court's determination regarding best interests was supported by competent, credible testimony, and find that the judgment was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. ... We find the evidence introduced at the hearing supports the trial court's conclusions under R.C. 2151.414 (E). ... We therefore find that the record presents sufficient competent, credible evidence supporting the holding that, despite the Agency's reasonable case planning and diligent efforts, appellant had refused or failed to remedy the concerns that initially caused the children to be placed outside her home, and that the children cannot and/or should not be placed with appellant now or in the foreseeable future. Appellant's Third Assignment of Error is overruled.

Section 2151.414 requires an agency seeking permanent custody to show both that custody is in the child's best interest and that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent.

In Re Nuttall Children, Unpublished Decision (11-20-2000) · filed 2000-11-20(D)

A trial court may not award permanent custody of a child to a state agency unless the agency satisfies two statutory factors. First, the agency must demonstrate that an award of permanent custody is in the best interest of the child. R.C. 2151.414 (D). Second, the agency must show that the child cannot be placed with one of the child's parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. Id. ... We hold that the trial court made its findings according to the statutory guidelines of R.C. 2151.414 and these findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 2151.414(E) requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one statutory factor before a court may find that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, after which subsection (D) governs the best-interest determination.

In Re Seal, Unpublished Decision (3-16-1998) · filed 1998-03-16(E)(2), (E)(4), (E)(5), (D)

A trial court may not grant permanent custody to an agency unless it determines by clear and convincing evidence that one or more of the eight statutory factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414 (E) exists. ... Once the trial court determines that one or more of the eight statutory factors exists, it must then, as required by R.C. 2151.353 (A), consider whether permanent custody is in the best interest of the of the child. ... Accordingly, we find, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (E)(2), (4) and (5), clear and convincing evidence existed to support the magistrate's determination that the children could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with either parent. ... Therefore, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (D), we find the magistrate's determination that it was in the best interest of the children to grant CCDHS permanent custody was neither against the weight of the evidence, nor an abuse of discretion.

Section 2151.414(B) permits permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence shows the award is in the child's best interest and the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time; under (E)(1) and (E)(4), failure to remedy removal conditions and other actions showing lack of commitment support that placement finding.

Matter of Jeff C., Unpublished Decision (2-5-1999) · filed 1999-02-05(B), (E)(1), and (E)(4)

Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B) the trial court could grant permanent custody of Jeff to LCCS if the court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) it is in the best interest of Jeff to grant permanent custody to LCCS and (2) Jeff cannot be placed with either of his parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with his parents. ... Though appellant did comply with some of the required services, she did not achieve sufficient progress to be able to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the child's home. Furthermore, while she did regularly visit her son, her "other actions" of failing to complete sex abuse therapy, failing to complete literacy training, and of permitting Jeff's father to live with her in her home show she lacks commitment toward Jeff.

Section 2151.414(D)(1) requires a trial court deciding a child's best interest to consider the child's interactions and relationships with specified people, including siblings and relatives.

In Re Ericka Bunch, Unpublished Decision (8-3-2000) · filed 2000-08-03(D)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 (D)(1) requires the trial court to consider, inter alia, 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. The record reveals that the trial court heard testimony regarding the children's interaction with one another, with their mother, and with their grandmother. John Cornwell testified that the children looked forward to seeing each other and getting together. He described them as being happy to see each other during visits. This evidence was part of the record and allowed the trial court to consider sibling interaction when determining what was in the best interests of the children.

Section 2151.414(B) requires clear and convincing proof 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 Woodruff, Unpublished Decision (5-26-1999) · filed 1999-05-26(B)

This is a two-part inquiry, requiring courts to determine by clear and convincing evidence whether (1) the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, and (2) it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody to the petitioning agency.

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 the relevant statutory factors.

Matter of George B., Unpublished Decision (11-19-1999) · filed 1999-11-19(B)(1), (D), (E)(2), (E)(4), and (E)(12)

This court has thoroughly reviewed the record of the proceedings below and, upon consideration thereof, finds that the trial court's conclusion that George B., Jr., cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time and should not be placed with either parent was supported by clear and convincing evidence. ... We further find clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that granting permanent custody of George B., Jr., to LCCSB is in the child's best interest.

Under the former version applied here, Section 2151.414(B)(1) required clear and convincing findings that permanent custody served the child's best interest and that the child could not or should not be placed with either parent.

In Re Fleming, Unpublished Decision (2-23-2000) · filed 2000-02-23(B)(1), (D), and (E)

When a child is not orphaned or abandoned by a parent, the trial court cannot terminate parental rights unless it finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody to CSB, and (2) the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parents. R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1). ... The statute provides that, if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that any one of twelve statutory circumstances exists as to the parent, the trial court " shall enter a finding that the [children] cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent." (Emphasis added.) Id. ... There was clear and convincing evidence of several of the twelve circumstances enumerated in R.C. 2151.414 (E) which mandate a finding that these children cannot be placed with Fleming in a reasonable time or should not be placed with her. There was also clear and convincing evidence that it was in the best interest of these children to grant permanent custody to CSB.

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence 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, with the court considering the statutory factors.

Matter of Piatt, Unpublished Decision (6-29-1999) · filed 1999-06-29(D), (E)

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 in order to resolve the best interest of the child inquiry, the court consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the following four factors: ... R.C. 2151.414 (E) next requires a trial court to find by clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with the parents.

Section 2151.414(B) 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.

In the Matter of Bynum, Unpublished Decision (2-17-2000) · filed 2000-02-17(B)

Further, the award of permanent custody of a child is governed by R.C. 2151.414 (B) which provides in pertinent part: (B) The court may grant permanent custody of a child to a movant if the court determines * * * 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 * * *: (1) * * * 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 permits permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence shows the children cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, requires consideration of the statutory best-interest factors, and includes a parent's repeated failure to remedy the conditions leading to removal and failure to provide an adequate permanent home among the relevant factors.

In the Matter of Hainline, Unpublished Decision (6-21-2000) · filed 2000-06-21(B)(1), (B), (D), (E)(1), and (E)(4)

Nevertheless, as we previously determined in In re Cook, at *2, the requisite finding of reasonable efforts was made where permanent custody is granted based on R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) pertaining to reasonable case planning and diligent efforts at reunification with the parents along with the court's reference to services provided by the agency and the mother's failure. ... In order to grant permanent custody of children who are neither abandoned nor orphaned to a public children's services agency, the juvenile court must determine, by clear and convincing evidence, that the children "cannot be placed with either of [their] parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with [their] parents[.]" R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1). R.C. 2151.414 (E) states the factors a court must consider, which include that the parents have failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions that caused the children to be placed outside the home and that the parents have demonstrated a lack of commitment toward the children by failing to provide an adequate permanent home for the children. R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) and (4). In addition, the court must determine, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interests of the children to grant permanent custody to DHS. R.C. 2151.414 (B). In determining the best interests of the children, the court must consider all relevant factors, including the four statutory factors listed in R.C. 2151.414 (D), which include the interaction and interrelationship of the children with their parents, siblings and foster parents, the wishes of the children, the custodial history of the children, and the children's need for a legally secure permanent placement.

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

In Re Chapman, Unpublished Decision (11-22-2000) · filed 2000-11-22(B)(1)(a), (D)

This is a two-part inquiry, requiring courts to determine whether, "by clear and convincing evidence[,] * * * both: (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."

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

In Re Griffin, Unpublished Decision (1-19-2001) · filed 2001-01-19(B)(1)(a)

Initially, we recognize that the trial court may only grant permanent custody to MCCS if it demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child, 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."

A best-interest finding alone does not support permanent custody where section 2151.414 also requires a determination that the child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

In Re Alamilla, Unpublished Decision (2-15-2001) · filed 2001-02-15(E)(1), (E)(2)

However, a best interest determination alone 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 Cesar could not be placed with either of his parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with his parents. In reaching this determination, the trial court relied upon R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1), and (2).

Section 2151.414(B)(1) 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 or should not be placed with the parents.

In the Matter of Vandivner, Unpublished Decision (2-22-2001) · filed 2001-02-22(B)(1)

Further, the award of permanent custody of a child is governed by R.C. 2151.414 (B) which provides in pertinent part: (B) The court may grant permanent custody of a child to a movant if the court determines * * * 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 * * *: (1) * * * 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)(2) requires both that permanent custody serve the child’s best interest and that the child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent.

In Re Dakota Hollin, Unpublished Decision (3-26-2001) · filed 2001-03-26(B)(2)

A trial court may not award permanent custody of a child to a state agency unless the agency satisfies two statutory requirements. The agency must first demonstrate that an award of permanent custody is in the best interest of the child. R.C. 2151.414 (B)(2). Second, the agency must show that the child cannot be placed with one of the child's parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) requires clear and convincing evidence both that permanent custody is in the children’s best interests and that they cannot or should not be placed with their parents within a reasonable time.

In Re Aughburns, Unpublished Decision (4-9-2001) · filed 2001-04-09(B)(1)

An award of permanent custody of children who are neither abandoned nor orphaned is controlled by R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1). Under this section, an agency seeking permanent custody must prove to the trial court, based on clear and convincing evidence, that (1) the grant of permanent custody is in the best interests of the children, and (2) the children cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with their parents.

A finding of an enumerated Section 2151.414(E) factor must be followed by a separate determination under Section 2151.414(D) that permanent commitment serves the child’s best interest.

In the Matter of Leo D., Unpublished Decision (3-15-2002) · filed 2002-03-15(D), (E)

Once the trial court finds from all relevant evidence that one of the enumerated factors exists, it then must consider whether permanent commitment is in the best interest of the child.

Clear evidence that parents could not safely meet a child's needs and failed to complete case-plan objectives can support both the best-interest and reasonable-time placement findings required by section 2151.414.

In Re Hiltabidel, Unpublished Decision (7-17-2002) · filed 2002-07-17(D), (E)

Upon review, this court finds that the juvenile court did not err in concluding that it was in the best interest of the child to be placed in the permanent custody of CSB. We find substantial evidence in support of that judgment, and, furthermore, the evidence weighed in favor of termination. Additionally, based upon the relevant evidence before the juvenile court, this court finds that the junvenile court did not err in concluding that the child cannot or should not be placed with Mr. Hiltabidel within a reasonable time.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) permits permanent custody only upon clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody serves the child's best interest and that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent.

In Re Harlston, Unpublished Decision (1-23-2003) · filed 2003-01-23(B)(1)

In order to terminate parental rights and grant permanent custody to a county agency, the record must demonstrate 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.

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

In Re S. S., Unpublished Decision (1-24-2003) · filed 2003-01-24(B)

Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B), a trial court is permitted to grant permanent custody of a child who has not been abandoned or orphaned to a public children services agency that has temporary custody of the child, if the trial court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that: (1) it is in the child's best interests to do so; and (2) that the child cannot be placed with either of his parents within a reasonable time, or should not be placed with his parents.

Once clear and convincing evidence establishes any factor enumerated in section 2151.414(E), the court must find that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent and then consider whether permanent custody is in the child's best interest under division (D).

In Matter of Devin B., Unpublished Decision (1-24-2003) · filed 2003-01-24(D), (E)

R.C. 2151.414 (E) requires that the trial court find that the child cannot or should not be placed with either of his parents within a reasonable time once the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that one or more of the enumerated factors exists. Once the court determines that one of the enumerated factors exists, then it must consider whether permanent commitment is in the best interest of the child. R.C. 2151.414 (D). Only after such findings may the court grant permanent custody of the child to the agency.

An award of permanent custody requires both a division (E) finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent and a division (D) finding that permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In the Matter of Alfrey, Unpublished Decision (2-7-2003) · filed 2003-02-07(D), (E)

An award of permanent custody requires a determination by the court in accordance with R.C. 2151.414 (E) that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent, and a further determination in accordance with R.C. 2151.414 (D) that permanent commitment is in the child's best interest.

Permanent custody is supported when the evidence establishes both that the child cannot or should not be placed with the parent within a reasonable time and that permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In the Matter of Foster, Unpublished Decision (9-22-2003) · filed 2003-09-22(D), (E)

In light of the foregoing and based upon the entire record in this matter, we find the trial court's findings the child could not and should not be placed with mother within a reasonable time, and it was in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody to the Agency were not against the manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence.

Section 2151.414 permits a court to grant permanent custody when custody is in the child's best interest and the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, with the court considering the non-exclusive factors in subsections (D) and (E).

In Re Culp, Unpublished Decision (7-25-2005) · filed 2005-07-25(B)(1)(a), (D), and (E)

A trial court may grant a request for permanent custody if it finds that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and that the child cannot be placed with either of the child's parents within a reasonable time. R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a). In determining the child's best interest, the trial court must consider the non-exclusive list of factors contained in R.C. 2151.414 (D). ... Similarly, the trial court must consider the non-exclusive list of factors in R.C. 2151.414 (E) when determining whether a child can be placed with the child's parents within a reasonable time. ... It is clear from the record that the trial court considered the factors in both R.C. 2151.414 (D) and (E) and made the required findings necessary to grant Children Services permanent custody. It is also clear that there is competent and credible evidence in the record supporting those findings.

Under subsections (D) and (E), a court considers enumerated factors in deciding whether a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time and whether permanent custody is in the child's best interest; a parent's prior involuntary loss of parental rights to a sibling is one such factor.

In Matter of Roberts, 2008-Ap 09 0059 (1-16-2009) · filed 2009-01-16(D), (E)(11)

R.C. 2151.414 (E)(11) is present here. {¶ 43} We find the trial court had before it sufficient competent and credible evidence upon which it could conclude by clear and convincing evidence, that these children could not be placed with appellant within a reasonable time and it was in the best interest of the children to be placed into the permanent custody of appellee.

A legally secure permanent placement under Section 2151.414(D)(1)(d) is more than physical housing; it is a stable, safe environment with dependable adults who will meet the child's needs.

In re M.H.-L.T. · filed 2017-09-19(D)(1)(d)

Thus, “[a] legally secure permanent placement is more than a house with four walls. Rather, it generally encompasses a stable environment where a child will live in safety with one or more dependable adults who will provide for the child’s needs.” M.B. at ¶56.

Section 2151.414(D)(1)(d) favors permanent custody when children need a legally secure placement that their parents cannot provide and that can be achieved only through agency custody.

In re B.L. · filed 2018-02-12(D)(1)(d)

Regarding R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(d), the court concluded that the children needed a legally secure placement and that such a placement could only be achieved through a grant of permanent custody to the agency. … After thoroughly reviewing the record, we find that sufficient credible evidence supported the juvenile court's determination regarding the best interest of the children.

Section 2151.414(D)(1)(d) favors permanent custody when children need stability and a parent remains unable to provide a safe and stable environment despite ample time and services.

In re J.B. · filed 2018-12-17(D)(1)(d)

After a thorough review of the record, we find the record fully supports the juvenile court's decision to grant BCCS's motion for permanent custody. … J.B. and I.C. are entitled to have stability in their lives by being placed in a legally secured permanent placement.

Division (B)(1)(a) permits permanent custody upon clear and convincing findings that custody is in the child's best interest and the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent.

In re K.M. · filed 2020-02-03(B)(1)(a)

Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a), a court may grant permanent custody of a child to a movant if the court determines 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 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.”

Division (B)(1)(a) permits permanent custody upon clear and convincing findings that custody is in the child's best interest and the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent.

In re D.M. · filed 2020-02-03(B)(1)(a)

Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a), a court may grant permanent custody of a child to a movant if the court determines 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 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.”

Permanent custody is supported when custody restoration is not viable and permanent agency custody is in the child's best interest.

In re J.J. · filed 2020-05-15(B)(1)(a), (D)(1)

The facts and evidence underpinning these trial court determinations reflect that custody restoration between appellant and the minor child was not viable and the award of permanent custody to LCCS was in the best interest of the child.

Subsection (A)'s notice requirement ensures personal jurisdiction over the parents, and one parent cannot challenge defective service on another without showing personal prejudice.

In re D.R. · filed 2020-08-06(A)(1)

The notice requirement of R.C. 2151.414(A) ensures the juvenile court has personal jurisdiction over the parents.

Before permanently divesting a parent of parental rights, the court must provide the parent notice and an opportunity to be heard.

In re Y.D. · filed 2017-12-27(A)(1)

To ... this end, before the termination of parental rights, natural parents must be afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard. In re Greer 70 Ohio St.3d 293, 298, 638 N.E.2d 999 (1994), citing Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248, 103 S.Ct. 2985, 77 L.Ed.2d 614 (1983); see R.C. 2151.414(A)(1) (a trial court must give notice and conduct a hearing before permanently divesting a parent of his or her parental rights).

Section 2151.414(A) requires notice of a permanent-custody motion and hearing to all parties, with service made under section 2151.29, which allows publication when reasonable efforts cannot locate the person to be served.

In Re Cowling · filed 1991-02-13(A)

R.C. 2151.414(A) provides in part: ... “Upon the filing of a motion pursuant to section 2151.413 of the Revised Code for permanent custody of a child by a public children services agency or private child placing agency that has temporary custody of the child, the court shall schedule a hearing and give notice of the filing of the motion and of the hearing, in accordance with section 2151.29 of the Revised Code, to all parties to the action and to the child’s guardian ad litem. * * *” ... R.C. 2151.29, in clarifying the notice required under R.C. 2151.414, provides in part: ... “Service of summons, notices and subpoenas, prescribed by section 2151.28 of the Revised Code, shall be made by delivering a copy to the person summoned, notified, or subpoenaed, or by leaving a copy at his usual place of residence. If the juvenile judge is satisfied that such service is impracticable, he may order service by registered or certified mail. If the person to be served is without the state but he can be found or his address is known, or his whereabouts or address can with reasonable diligence be ascertained, service of the summons may be made by delivering a copy to him personally or mailing a copy to him by registered or certified mail. ... “Whenever it appears by affidavit that after reasonable effort the person to be served with summons cannot be found or his post-office address ascertained, whether he is within or without a state, the clerk shall publish such summons once in a newspaper of general circulation throughout the county. The summons shall state the substance and the time and place of the hearing, which shall be held at least one week later than the date of the publication. A copy of the summons and the complaint shall be sent by registered or certified mail to the last known address of the person summoned unless it is shown by affidavit that a reasonable effort has been made, without success, to obtain such address. * * * ” ... We have reviewed the record and conclude that CSB exercised reasonable diligence in the case at bar. ... As such, service by publication was proper in the case at bar as CSB adequately established that it exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to locate the appellant.

Section 2151.414(A)(1) bars a court from readjudicating the child's prior abuse, neglect, or dependency adjudication during the dispositional phase of a permanent-custody hearing, but does not bar consideration of evidence from the parents' prior cases during the adjudicatory phase.

In the Matter of Charnina J., Unpublished Decision (2-25-2000) · filed 2000-02-25(A)(1)

Appellants' contentions are without merit. Appellants misconstrue R.C. 2151.414 (A)(1). The goal of statutory interpretation is to determine legislative intent as found in the words used by the General Assembly as well as the purpose to be accomplished by the statute. State v. Elam (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 585 , 587 . Thus, we must first look to the plain language of R.C. 2151.414 . A plain reading of the disputed language reveals that during the dispositional phase of a hearing on a motion for permanent custody the court shall not readjudicate a previous finding that the child who is the subject of that case was dependent abused or neglected. In this case, LCCS filed, pursuant to R.C. 2151.353 (A)(4), an original complaint for permanent custody. Thus, the court was required to first hold a hearing to determine whether Charnina was a dependent child. R.C. 2151.35 . Then, during the subsequent dispositional phase the court had to follow the strictures of R.C. 2151.414 . See R.C. 2151.353 (A)(4). Here, the court did not readjudicate the issue of Charnina's dependency during the dispositional phase. Accordingly, appellants' first assignment of error is found not well-taken.

Section 2151.414(A)(1) requires timely notice of the permanent-custody motion and hearing, including a full explanation of an indigent party's right to appointed counsel.

In the Matter of Lane, Unpublished Decision (10-5-2000) · filed 2000-10-05(A)(1)

Proof of actual notice requires timely knowledge of all the provisions listed in R.C. 2151.414 (A)(1), not simply notice that a hearing will be held.

Section 2151.414(E) requires clear and convincing proof that the child cannot be returned to either parent, so defective service preventing one parent from defending inherently prejudices the other parent.

In the Matter of Jones, Unpublished Decision (11-22-2000) · filed 2000-11-22(E)

To grant permanent custody, the court is required to find by clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be returned to either parent. Thus, in a case such as this, the interests of both parents are aligned. Where one parent is unable to defend against this challenge, prejudice to the other parent is inherent.

Parents may waive defective notice of a permanent-custody hearing under section 2151.414(A) by actively litigating the merits with counsel despite initially objecting to service.

In the Matter of Crow, Unpublished Decision (1-22-2001) · filed 2001-01-22(A)

Tammy, Daniel and their attorneys attended and participated in the numerous hearings regarding this case, and at trial, both parties were very active in defending their cases. We conclude that by their actions they voluntarily submitted themselves to the trial court's jurisdiction, despite their initial objections at trial.

Section 2151.414(E)’s requirement concerning placement with either parent makes defective service preventing one parent’s defense inherently prejudicial to the other parent.

In the Matter of Call, Unpublished Decision (4-12-2001) · filed 2001-04-12(E)

To grant permanent custody, the court is required to find that the child cannot be returned to either parent. See R.C. 2151.414 (E). Where one parent is unable to defend against this challenge, prejudice to the other parent is inherent. ... Here, the termination of Mr. Call's parental rights, made without a full adjudication of whether the child could be placed in the mother's potential custody, is inherently prejudicial to Mr. Call.

Defective service on one parent can prejudice the other parent in permanent-custody proceedings when it prevents consideration of placement with the unserved parent.

In the Matter of Stephens, Unpublished Decision (5-17-2001) · filed 2001-05-17(A)(1), (E)

Pursuant to In Re Call , Ronald Stephens, Sr. did not receive proper notice and the award of permanent custody is void against him. Also pursuant to In Re Call , Appellant was prejudiced by the defective service upon the father of her children, as the trial court did not consider whether the children could have been placed in his custody.

Actual notice and counseled participation in permanent-custody proceedings can satisfy notice requirements where parents wait until after adjudication to challenge the complaint and service.

In the Matter of Lehman, Unpublished Decision (5-17-2001) · filed 2001-05-17(A)(1)

In the matter before us, Appellants appeared with counsel at all hearings regarding the relevant complaints for permanent custody. ... In adopting the rationale of In Re Webb, supra, we are mindful that, "[t]he sections of the Ohio Revised Code that govern custody matters are to be liberally construed to provide for the care, protection, and mental and physical development of children * * *." In Re Wise (1994), 96 Ohio App.3d 619 , 624 citing In Re Cunningham (1979), 59 Ohio St.2d 100 , 105 . We also note that Juv.R.22(D) provides that defenses and objections based on defects in the complaint must be heard prior to the adjudicatory hearing. In Re Shaeffer Children (1993), 85 Ohio App.3d 683 , 688 , jurisdictional motion overruled 67 Ohio St.3d 1451 . In the present instance, Appellants did not challenge the sufficiency of the complaint and notice until after their children were adjudicated, one as an abused child and the other as a dependent child.

Failure to serve one parent can prejudice the other in permanent-custody proceedings because Section 2151.414 requires a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent before parental rights are terminated.

In Re M. M., Unpublished Decision (2-7-2002) · filed 2002-02-07(B)(1)(a)

In permanent custody proceedings, however, this court has held that the failure of service on one parent satisfies the Smith standard of transferable error, because R.C. 2151.414 requires the judge to determine that the child cannot be placed with either parent before divesting even one of them of parental rights.

Service under Sections 2151.414(A)(1) and 2151.29 is effective when the summons and complaint are left at the parent’s usual shared residence, despite a claimed transient status.

In Re Vinci, Unpublished Decision (4-11-2002) · filed 2002-04-11(A)(1)

The facts and evidence presented at the first hearing on July 10, 2000 demonstrate that Mr. Nester was properly served, as a process server left a copy of the summons and complaint at his usual place of residence, the apartment he shared with Ms. Vinci. To hold otherwise would allow anyone's self-imposed "transient" status to thwart otherwise proper service.

A parent who appears and participates with counsel may waive defects in § 2151.414(A)(1) notice, and notice language in the original summons can satisfy the statute's purpose despite truncated language in a later permanent-custody notice.

In Re Shumate, Unpublished Decision (4-29-2003) · filed 2003-04-29(A)(1)

Under these circumstances, we hold that the notice language on the original summons sufficiently complies with the legislative intent of R.C. 2151.414 (A)(1) to provide notice of the permanent custody motion's potential effect.

Subsection (A)(1)'s hearing and parental-rights notice requirements govern a motion for permanent custody, not a permanent-custody complaint.

In Re I.M., Unpublished Decision (12-24-2003) · filed 2003-12-24(A)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 governs procedures upon a motion for permanent custody. Subsection (A)(1) of that statute provides that a court "shall schedule a hearing and give notice of the filing of the motion * * *." The notice "shall contain a full explanation that the granting of permanent custody permanently divests the parents of their parental rights * * *." Id.

Section 2151.414(A) requires the juvenile court to schedule a hearing on a permanent-custody motion and notify every party of both the motion and the hearing, including a rescheduled hearing.

In Re Wayt, Unpublished Decision (5-23-2005) · filed 2005-05-23(A)

R.C. 2151.414 (A) requires the juvenile court to schedule a hearing on a motion for permanent custody and to give notice of filing of the motion and of the hearing to all parties. Pursuant to Juv.R. R. 2 (Y) appellant is a proper party who is entitled to notice. ... Because the record does not demonstrate proof of service of the continuance of the trial date on appellant, we conclude the judgment must be vacated and the case remanded to the trial court.

Section 2151.414 limits a permanent-custody proceeding to determining whether parental rights should be terminated, so foster parents’ desire for legal custody is tangential to that proceeding.

In re J.B. · filed 2011-09-22

We agree with Thompson. The determination to be had in a permanent custody proceeding is whether parental rights should be terminated. The Gallaghers’ desire for legal custody of the child is tangential to that determination.

The notice requirement in subsection (A)(1) concerns personal rather than subject-matter jurisdiction, and a parent waives a service challenge by appearing and fully participating without objection.

In re R.D. · filed 2021-10-25(A)(1)

{¶ 19} The record also establishes that Mother never objected to the magistrate going ahead with the permanent custody hearing due to any alleged violation of the notice requirement found in R.C. 2151.414(A)(1) either before, during, or after the permanent custody hearing was held. Under these circumstances, and when considering Mother does not argue that she suffered any resulting prejudice, we find no error in the magistrate's decision to proceed with permanent custody hearing as scheduled. This is because, as noted above, Mother waived any challenge to the juvenile court's personal jurisdiction over her by appearing at, and fully participating in, the permanent custody hearing.

Section 2151.414 does not govern a permanent custody request on a new neglect or dependency complaint when the agency lacks temporary custody under a prior dispositional order.

In Re Malone · filed 2008-09-02

In Malone I, this court found that the trial court was required to proceed under R.C. 2151.35 and 2151.353, not R.C. 2151.414, because MCCSB filed a new complaint and MCCSB did not have temporary custody of Kaylea and Connie pursuant to an order of disposition under R.C. 2151.353(A)(2). ... Of consequence to this appeal is the fact that the court erred by proceeding as if it were modifying an order of temporary custody to permanent custody and by not proceeding as necessary on the new complaint.

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 requires at least one statutory factor as to each parent.

In Re Weaver · filed 1992-03-30(B)(1), (E), (E)(2), and (E)(7)

Turning to the weight-of-the-evidence question,' R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) provides that the court may grant permanent custody if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of timé or should not be placed with the parents. ... Furthermore, R.C. 2151.414(E) requires the trial court to enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parents if, upon considering all relevant evidence, the court concludes, by clear and convincing evidence, that at least one of the eight specific statutory factors exists with respect to each of the child’s parents. ... The evidence is such that appellants’ chemical dependency or repeated incarcerations prevent them from providing an adequate permanent home for the child. R.C. 2151.414(E)(2) and (7).

Section 2151.414 allows an agency to receive permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence shows that custody is in the child's best interest and statutory conditions—such as the child's inability to be placed with either parent within a reasonable time—are satisfied.

In Re Turner, Unpublished Decision (6-23-1997) · filed 1997-06-23(B)(1), (D), (E)(1), (E)(2), and (E)(4)

R.C. 2151.414 (B) provides that permanent custody may be granted to an agency if the juvenile court determines by clear and convincing evidence that an award of permanent custody is in the best interest of the child and that any one of the three factors in R.C. 2151.414 (B) apply. For purposes of this appeal, the relevant factor in R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1) provides that permanent custody may be granted to the movant if the child is not abandoned or orphaned and the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time. ... After thoroughly reviewing the record, we find that clear and convincing evidence establishes that the conditions set forth in R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1), (2) and (4) were satisfied with regard to Mrs. Turner. We further find that the trial court's finding that the children could not be placed with Mrs. Turner within a reasonable time was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. ... After thoroughly reviewing the record, we find that clear and convincing evidence establishes that the conditions set forth in R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) and (4) were satisfied with regard to Mr. Turner. We further find that the trial court's finding that the children could not be placed with Mr. Turner within a reasonable time was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. ... In light of all of the foregoing, we therefore hold that the trial court's decision to award permanent custody of the children to BCCSB was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Section 2151.414(E)(6) requires a court to find that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time when the parent violated R.C. 2907.03 and the child or a sibling was the victim.

Matter of Galyon, Unpublished Decision (9-29-1997) · filed 1997-09-29(E)(6)

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. ... (6) The parent violated section * * * 2907.03 of the Revised Code and the child or a sibling of the child was a victim of the violation * * *. ... Based upon the foregoing, we find that the record contains clear and convincing evidence that appellant committed sexual battery in violation of R.C. 2907.03 , 2 and that Wesley's sibling was the victim of the offense. Accordingly, R.C. 2151.414 (E)(6) required the trial court to find that Wesley cannot or should not be returned to appellant within a reasonable period of time.

Section 2151.414(E) requires a clear-and-convincing-evidence determination that a dependent child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent, based on the listed and relevant factors.

Matter of Steinhoff, Unpublished Decision (12-22-1997) · filed 1997-12-22(E)

The court must conduct a hearing and determine whether the child cannot be placed with one of his parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent and determine whether such permanent commitment is in the best interest of the child. ... The record further supports by clear and convincing evidence the findings of the trial court that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

Section 2151.414(E)(4) requires a court to find that a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time when clear and convincing evidence shows a parent lacks commitment by failing to support, visit, or communicate when able, or otherwise shows unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home.

In Re: Shock, Unpublished Decision (2-13-1998) · filed 1998-02-13(E)(4)

R.C. 2151.414 (E)(4) provides, as one of the grounds upon which a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, 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 [.]. In our view, in its first-numbered conclusion of law, in which the trial court referenced R.C. 2151.414 (E), and stated that there was clear and convincing evidence that the children could not be placed with either of their parents within a reasonable time because the father was deceased and the mother had not provided any support or care for the children since they were placed with the Montgomery County Children Services Board, the trial court sufficiently invoked the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414 (E)(4).

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

Matter of Rumer, Unpublished Decision (3-9-1998) · filed 1998-03-09(E)(1)

The first factor which the trial court applied was R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1), which states: ... In this case, we find support for the trial court's determination that Carmen has continuously and repeatedly failed to remedy the conditions which caused the children to be placed outside of her custody. ... Thus, in view of the foregoing, we find that competent and credible evidence exists to sustain the clear and convincing evidentiary standard of R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1). Consequently, the trial court's grant of CSB's permanent custody order was not in error.

Section 2151.414(E) requires clear and convincing evidence of one or more listed parental conditions before the court may find that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

Matter of Jennifer L., Unpublished Decision (5-1-1998) · filed 1998-05-01(E)(1), (E)(2), (E)(4)

The father does not argue that there was no clear and convincing evidence to show that it was in Jennifer's best interest for the court to give an order granting LCCS permanent custody of Jennifer. Instead, the father focuses his arguments on the provisions in R.C. 2151.414 that set forth factors to be considered by the trial court to decide whether "a child cannot be placed with either of his parents within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with his parents * * *." R.C. 2151.414 (E). ... The trial court cited each of these factors and stated that it found these three factors were shown as to the father by clear and convincing evidence. We agree with the trial court and with LCCS that the record contains clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's ruling that each of these factors was shown as to the father.

Section 2151.414(E) requires a court deciding whether a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time to consider all relevant evidence and, on clear and convincing proof of specified parental conditions, enter that finding.

In Re Doe Children · filed 1994-02-11(E)

Upon consideration of the entire record of proceedings in the trial court and the law, this court finds that (1) there was clear and convincing evidence presented at the January 1992 hearing that the four Doe children could not be placed with either of their parents within a reasonable time; (2) the findings of ... the referee as adopted by the trial court clearly support the award of permanent custody that was entered by the trial court on January 30, 1992; and (3) the trial court acted unreasonably and in abuse of its discretion by modifying its January 30, 1992 award of permanent custody of Beth, David and Steven to an award of temporary custody.

Section 2151.414(E) requires a finding that a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent when one or more listed factors exists as to each parent; under (E)(4), lack of commitment shown by failure to regularly visit or communicate or unwillingness to provide an adequate home suffices.

Matter of Elliott, Unpublished Decision (9-28-1998) · filed 1998-09-28(E)(1), (E)(2), (E)(4)

We agree with appellant the trial court's findings Nos. 12 and 13 are flawed because the trial court apparently applied former R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) and (2). However, R.C. 2151.414 (E) requires a trial court to enter a finding the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent when "one or more" of the factors exist. The trial court's reasoning in finding No. 14 that appellant "has demonstrated a lack of commitment toward Lawrence by failing to regularly visit or communicate with him when able to do so" and has shown "an unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home" for the child is a sufficient basis upon with the court could enter such a finding. Accordingly, we find the trial court's finding Lawrence could not be placed with appellant within a reasonable time or should not be placed with appellant pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (E)(4) is not against either the sufficiency or the manifest weight of the evidence.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) supports a permanent-custody award when children cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, including where the conditions listed in subsection (E) are established.

In Re: Lyon Children, Unpublished Decision (2-1-1999) · filed 1999-02-01(B)(1)

We find the evidence introduced at the hearing supports the trial court's conclusions under R.C. 2151.414 (B) and R.C. 2151.414 (E). ... Based upon the above evidence, we find the trial court's decision that the minor children could not be placed with appellant within a reasonable time and that the best interest of the children would be served by granting permanent custody is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) allows permanent custody when a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, with (E) listing circumstances supporting that finding.

In Re: Grimm, Unpublished Decision (2-8-1999) · filed 1999-02-08(B)(1), (E)

We find the evidence introduced at the hearing supports the trial court's conclusions under R.C. 2151.414 (B) and R.C. 2151.414 (E). ... Based upon the above evidence, we find the trial court's decision that the minor child could not be placed with appellant within a reasonable time and that the best interest of the child would be served by granting permanent custody supported by the manifest weight of the evidence.

Section 2151.414(E) requires the court to consider all relevant evidence and, by clear and convincing evidence, find that one or more listed factors exist for each parent before finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

Matter of orr/hill, Unpublished Decision (2-12-1999) · filed 1999-02-12(E)

In determining whether a child cannot be placed with either of its parents within a reasonable period of time, or should not be placed with his parents, R.C. 2151.414 (E) provides that "the court shall consider all relevant evidence," and "if the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence * * * that one or more of [twelve factors] 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."

Section 2151.414(E) requires a court granting permanent custody to find that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time when one of the listed factors exists.

In Re Fagaly, Unpublished Decision (7-12-1999) · filed 1999-07-12(E)

When granting permanent custody to a state agency, the trial court must also find that one of the factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414 (E) exist. ... If any 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. ... We find that the record supports the trial court's conclusion that Alexander cannot be placed with appellant within a reasonable time.

Under subsection (E)(7), a parent's incarceration and resulting unavailability to care for the child within eighteen months requires a finding that the child cannot be placed with that parent within a reasonable time.

Matter of Lewis, Unpublished Decision (9-22-1999) · filed 1999-09-22(E)(7)

The conclusion that a child cannot be placed with his or her parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with a parent requires a finding by the trial court, by clear and convincing evidence, that at least one of the factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414 (E) is present. In this case, Appellant conceded that she was incarcerated at the time of the dispositional hearing and would not be available to care for Desiree within eighteen months. See R.C. 2151.414 (E)(7). 3 R.C. 2151.414 (E), therefore, required the conclusion that Desiree could not be placed with Appellant within a reasonable time.

Section 2151.414(E) supports a finding that a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time and should not be placed with either parent when the specified factors are established by clear and convincing evidence.

In Re White, Unpublished Decision (11-3-1999) · filed 1999-11-03(E)

White claims that the trial court erred in granting permanent custody to DHS because the necessary factors under R.C. 2151.414 (E) did not exist or were not supported by sufficient, credible evidence. The record reveals that White did not complete the parenting training demanded by the court, that White failed to realize that her methods of disciplining her children constituted physical abuse and lack of impulse control, and that White failed to remedy the conditions that caused the children to be placed outside the home. The record also reflects that the children's fathers have failed to support, visit, or communicate with the children. Thus, the magistrate correctly found, by clear and convincing evidence, that the children could not be placed with a parent in a reasonable time and should not be placed with any parent. R.C. 2151.414 (E).

Section 2151.414(B) 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; under (E)(1) and (E)(4), specified parental failures support a finding that placement cannot occur within a reasonable time.

In Re Christian, Unpublished Decision (12-1-1999) · filed 1999-12-01(B), (E)(1), (E)(4)

It was undisputed that James has never attempted to provide a safe and clean home for these children. This evidence supports a mandatory finding that these children cannot be placed with James within a reasonable time, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1). ... This failure to comply with the case plan demonstrates James' lack of commitment to the children and supports a mandatory finding that the children cannot be placed with James within a reasonable time pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (E)(4). Based on the foregoing, we find that there was clear and convincing evidence for the trial court to find that these children cannot be placed with their father within a reasonable time. R.C. 2151.414 (B).

Section 2151.414(B)(1) permits permanent custody when a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time, and subsection (E) identifies parental conditions supporting that finding.

In Re Garner, Unpublished Decision (12-6-1999) · filed 1999-12-06(B)(1), (E)

We find the evidence introduced at the hearing supports the trial court's conclusion under R.C. 2151.414 (B) and R.C. 2151.414 (E). ... Based on the above evidence, we find the trial court's decision that the minor child could not be placed with appellant within a reasonable time and that the best interest of the child would be served by granting permanent custody supported by the manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence.

Section 2151.414(E) requires a court to find by clear and convincing evidence that one or more listed factors exist before finding that a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parents, after which the court must consider the child's best interest under division (D).

In the Matter of Brian L., Unpublished Decision (2-25-2000) · filed 2000-02-25(E)

R.C. 2151.414 (E) 3 requires the trial court to find that the child cannot be placed with either of his or her parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parents once the court has determined by clear and convincing evidence that one or more of the enumerated factors exist. Once the trial court finds from all relevant evidence that one of the enumerated factors exists, it then must consider whether permanent commitment is in the best interest of the child.

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

In Re Xavier D.-S., Unpublished Decision (8-14-2000) · filed 2000-08-14(E)(1), (E)(4)

To resolve these issues, we must determine whether the lower court complied with R.C. 2151.414 and whether there was clear and convincing evidence to support the finding that one or more of the factors listed in R.C. 2151.414 (E) exists. ... Finally, R.C. 2151.414 (E) directs the court to consider several factors to determine if a child cannot or should not be placed with his parents. If the court makes one of the findings enumerated in R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) through (12), the statute directs 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[.]" R.C. 2151.414 (E). ... Considering all of the record evidence, we find that the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the trial court's findings and judgment.

Section 2151.414 requires both a cannot-or-should-not-be-placed finding and a best-interest finding before permanent custody may terminate parental rights; a mental disability factor alone does not mandate termination.

In the Matter Moore, Unpublished Decision (9-5-2000) · filed 2000-09-05(B)(1), (D), and (E)(2)

However, contrary to Williams' contention, R.C. 2151.414 does not mandate the termination of a parent's rights and responsibilities upon such a finding. Rather, R.C. 2151.414 (E)(2) must be read in tandem with R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1), which states that a court may grant permanent custody when it determines that the child cannot and should not be placed with either parent, and that it is in the child's best interest, as measured by the factors of R.C. 2151.414 (D). If the court does not also find that it is in the child's best interest to terminate custody, the court can make alternative orders for the care of the child. R.C. 2151.414 (E) provides guidance as to making the cannot/ should not determination, but does not require a mandatory termination of parental rights.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) permits permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence shows that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, and § 2151.414(E)(1) requires that finding when the parent has continuously and repeatedly failed for six months or more to remedy the conditions that led to the child’s removal.

In Re mcmillen/hough Children, Unpublished Decision (11-1-1999) · filed 1999-11-01(B)(1) and (E)(1)

The directives of R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1) are clarified by R.C. 2151.414 (E), which reads in part as follows: (E) In determining at a hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this section * * * 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 * * * 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 for a period of six months or more to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside his home. * * * * * * (12) Any other factor the court considers relevant. We find the evidence introduced at the hearing supports the trial court's conclusions under R.C. 2151.414 (B) and R.C. 2151.414 (E).

Section 2151.414(E) requires the court, upon clear and convincing proof that one or more listed conditions exists as to each parent, to find that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent.

In Re Peterson, Unpublished Decision (9-11-2000) · filed 2000-09-11(E)

R.C. 2151.414 (E) sets out the factors relevant to determining permanent custody. Said section states in pertinent part as follows: (E) In determining at a hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this section or for the purposes of division (A)(4) of section 2151.353 of the Revised Code 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 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 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. ... Based upon our review, we find there was clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's decision to grant permanent custody of the child to appellee.

Section 2151.414(E) requires the juvenile court to find that a child cannot be placed with either parent when clear and convincing evidence establishes one or more of the listed statutory factors.

Matter of Kessler, Unpublished Decision (5-12-1999) · filed 1999-05-12(E)

Pursuant to section (E) of this statute, the juvenile court is required to find that the children cannot be placed with either parent if the court has determined by clear and convincing evidence that one or more of the twelve factors set forth exist. ... Based on the record before us, we find there was clear and convincing evidence to support the juvenile court's findings going to four of the statutory factors under R.C. 2151.414 (E). Accordingly, appellant's second assignment of error is overruled.

Section 2151.414(E) requires clear and convincing proof of one or more listed conditions as to each parent; when relying on (E)(1), the agency must show post-removal reasonable case planning and diligent efforts, while severe mental illness or chemical dependency and unwillingness to provide necessities can independently support the placement finding.

Matter of O., Unpublished Decision (9-17-1999) · filed 1999-09-17(E)(1), (E)(2), and (E)(9)

To satisfy the requirements of R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1); 1. The child must be placed outside the home; 2. After which, the public agency must, through reasonable case planning and diligent efforts, attempt to help the parents remedy the causes of the child's removal from the home; 3. Even with such planning and effort, the parent must fail continuously and repeatedly to remedy the condition which caused the child's removal; 4. The burden is on the public agency to prove all of these elements by clear and convincing evidence. ... Absent any evidence of agency efforts to reunification after the children's removal from the home, an R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) predicate finding cannot be sustained. Accordingly, appellants' first assignment of error is well-taken. ... The evidence is uncontroverted that appellant Scott R. is a violent paranoid schizophrenic. A 1996 psychiatric report stated that if Scott R. regularly took his medication and refrained from using alcohol, it was "possible" that he would abstain from violence. This, coupled with appellant Arletha B.'s reports that Scott R. consumes substantial amounts of alcohol on a daily basis and police reports of repeated domestic violence initiated by him clearly support the predicate finding under R.C. 2151.414 (E)(2) with reference to Scott R. Accordingly, appellants' second assignment of error is not well-taken. ... With respect to appellants' third assignment of error, the repeated evictions, subsisting in a two bedroom apartment without gas or appliances, the inability to meet a $250 rent payment on $1600 monthly income, the refusal to accept assistance in finding adequate housing, rejection of budget counseling and a total lack of cooperation with caseworkers and service providers supports an R.C. 2151.414 (E)(9) finding that appellants are unwilling to provide necessities for the children or prevent the children from suffering neglect. Accordingly, appellants' third assignment of error is not well-taken.

Subsection (E)(1) requires proof of post-removal reasonable case planning and diligent agency efforts before a parent's failure to remedy conditions can support the finding, while subsection (E)(11) independently supports it when its neglect-and-sibling-removal condition is proven.

In Re Alexis W., Unpublished Decision (9-30-1999) · filed 1999-09-30(E)(1), (E)(11)

However, R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) is inapplicable under the facts of this case. Instead, we find that the court's judgment as it relates to R.C. 2151.414 (E)(11) is supported by clear and convincing evidence. ... Therefore, the requisites of R.C. 2151.414 (E)(11) were satisfied, and the trial court did not err in entering a finding that Alexis and Latoar could not be placed with appellant within a reasonable time or should not be placed with appellant.

Section 2151.414(E)(7)(c) applies to a voluntary guilty plea to qualifying child-endangering charges even if the parent later claims to have pleaded guilty only to protect the other parent.

In Matter of Zander, Unpublished Decision (12-11-2000) · filed 2000-12-11(E)(7)(c)

Edward disagrees, arguing that he pled guilty to the child endangering charges only to protect Tracy and take blame for her abusive actions against Alec. Even if this is so, it does not change the fact that Edward voluntarily chose to plead guilty to the charges, making R.C. 2151.414 (E)(7)(c) applicable.

Consistent visitation and love for a child do not preclude a finding of lack of commitment under section 2151.414(E)(4) when a parent fails or refuses to protect the child from repeated abuse.

In Re Hoskins, Unpublished Decision (1-10-2001) · filed 2001-01-10(E)(4)

Appellant has been consistent in her visitation of Shirin and there is no question that she loves her daughter. At the same time, however, the record supports the finding of the juvenile judge that appellant has demonstrated a lack of commitment toward the child by failing or refusing to protect Shirin from a multitude of abuses by Perry and her male partners.

Evidence of a parent's inability to provide satisfactory housing and properly parent the children supports the parental-placement determination under section 2151.414(E).

In Re Matter of mcdaniels/evans Children, Unpublished Decision (1-22-2001) · filed 2001-01-22(E)

Given the direct testimony on the lack of mother's ability to parent and her inability to provide satisfactory housing, we find the trial court's decision is supported by the evidence.

Section 2151.414(E) directs the court to consider its sixteen statutory factors when determining whether children cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

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

R.C. 2151.414 (E) lists sixteen factors the trial court should consider in determining whether a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. ... Our review of the record leads us to conclude the trial court correctly found by clear and convincing evidence that the four children could not or should not be reunited with appellant within a reasonable time.

Section 2151.414 permits continued temporary custody to allow more time for case-plan compliance where the court does not find clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable time.

In Re Tyrese Wallace Malik Wallace, Unpublished Decision (5-3-2001) · filed 2001-05-03(B)(1), (E)(1)

The record does not show an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in finding that there was not clear and convincing evidence that the younger boy could not be placed with the mother within a reasonable period of time. ... It was within the trial court's discretion to give the mother more time to comply with her case plan. The children were both to remain in their current placement and no disruption of their lives would occur.

A request for additional reunification time must be evaluated against the child's continued lack of an adequate permanent home and evidence that more time would enable the parent to provide one.

In Re Martin, Unpublished Decision (5-10-2001) · filed 2001-05-10(E)

Finally, we note that any extension of time provided to a parent is also an extension of time in which a child is denied the opportunity to live in an adequate permanent home. Ms. Martin failed to cite any evidence that, if given more time, she would be able to provide such a home. There was clear and convincing evidence that she could not be reunited with her children within a reasonable time, and that permanent custody was in their best interests.

Section 2151.414(E)(4) and (E)(16) permit consideration of a parent’s unexplained failure to attend the permanent-custody hearing as evidence of lack of commitment and other relevant conduct.

In Re Magnus, Unpublished Decision (9-13-2001) · filed 2001-09-13(E)(4), (E)(16)

Appellant's failure to appear at the hearing would be probative of factor (E)(4), that 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. Further, factor (E)(16) allows the consideration of any other factor the court considers relevant. Appellant's failure to appear at the final PCC hearing for her child without providing any explanation or contacting her attorney is certainly relevant.

Section 2151.414(E)(3) is supported by a child-endangering conviction arising from the removal incident notwithstanding the parent’s later denial of responsibility.

In the Matter of Lance H., Unpublished Decision (10-12-2001) · filed 2001-10-12(E)(3)

Appellant consented to a finding that these children were abused and neglected at the initial adjudicatory hearing before the trial court and it is undisputed that she was convicted of child endangering as a result of the incident that caused these children to be removed from the home. Notwithstanding her later disavowal of responsibility for the children's injuries, the child endangering conviction alone is sufficient to support an R.C. 2151.414 (E)(3) finding.

Section 2151.414(E)(4) supports a finding against parental placement where a parent repeatedly misses scheduled visits without notice and fails to interact with the child at visits she attends.

In Re Blair, Unpublished Decision (10-16-2001) · filed 2001-10-16(E)(4)

Finally, the evidence demonstrates that while Thomas was in the temporary custody of the ACCSB, Appellant had thirty-four opportunities to visit her child; however, without notification, she neglected to show up at the scheduled visitations twenty-six times. When Appellant did participate in visitation she failed to interact with the child. Competent and credible testimony, therefore, supports the trial court's finding that Thomas cannot be placed with his parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a), (E)(4).

Section 2151.414(E)(2)’s one-year period for assessing the parent’s ability to provide an adequate home runs from commencement of the permanent-custody hearing where continuances extend that hearing over eighteen months.

In Re Sims, Unpublished Decision (11-8-2001) · filed 2001-11-08(E)(2)

Here, however, the trial court conducted the hearing on the motion for permanent custody over an eighteen-month period, beginning in March 1999 and concluding in September 2000. ... Based on the reasonableness standard, we conclude that March 30, 1999, the date that the permanent custody hearing commenced, is the appropriate date from which the trial court should have determined whether Sims could provide an adequate permanent home for the children within one year.

A continuing history of incarceration and unstable income and housing supports a finding that children cannot or should not be placed with the parent under section 2151.414(E).

In Re Wanisha Dickson, Unpublished Decision (11-21-2001) · filed 2001-11-21(E)

The trial court's determination that the children could not or should not be placed with Dickson is supported by competent and credible evidence. Dickson has a continuing history of incarceration, lack of stable income, and lack of stable housing.

Repeated intoxicated driving with children, exposure to an abusive adult and unsafe living conditions, and refusal of treatment can support a finding under Section 2151.414(E) that the children cannot or should not be placed with the parent.

In the Matter of Anthony G., Unpublished Decision (3-6-2002) · filed 2002-03-06(E)

Based upon the evidence as summarized above, this court finds that DJFS presented sufficient evidence to create in the mind of the trial court a firm conviction that Gage, Anthony, Jeremiah and Alanna G. could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with them, and that it was in the children's best interest to grant permanent custody to the Wood County Department of Job and Family Services. The trial court had before it extensive testimony that appellant placed her children at risk by allowing them to live with a man who abused them, by allowing them to live in a home with no water for several months, by failing to feed and clean them, by driving more than once under the influence of alcohol with the children in the car, and by failing to take any action to follow through with treatment options presented to her.

Failure to identify the perpetrator of severe child abuse does not prevent a recurrence-risk finding under Section 2151.414(E)(15) when the unidentified abuser may still have access to the child.

In Re Hogan, Unpublished Decision (4-18-2002) · filed 2002-04-18(E)(15)

To the contrary, we believe that the fact that no one has come forward to identify Elijahwa's abuser makes it more likely that abuse will persist because there is no evidence that the person who perpetrated this vicious attack will not again have access to the child. Furthermore, we believe that the evidence presented at the hearing was sufficient to produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief that there is a threat to the child's safety if he is placed with either parent, due to the extent of the injuries and the likelihood of recurrence.

A child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time when the parent repeatedly says the child will never be allowed to return home, does not seek the child's return, and refuses family counseling aimed at reunification.

In the Matter of Beasley, Unpublished Decision (5-28-2003) · filed 2003-05-28(B)

In this case, the testimony revealed that Beasley has repeatedly stated her intention never to allow Daniel to return home, and Beasley has not sought to have Daniel return home at any time. Additionally, Beasley has refused to participate in family counseling geared toward reunification. ... We find that these facts constitute some competent, credible evidence that Daniel cannot be placed with Beazley within a reasonable time.

Sections 2151.414(B)(1)(a) and (E)(4) support a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent when the parent has long provided no day-to-day care and went a full year without contact.

In Re Leitwein, Unpublished Decision (3-12-2004) · filed 2004-03-12(B)(1)(a), (E)(4)

In the case at bar, we find ample competent and credible evidence to support the trial court's decision to award WCCS permanent custody of Robert. We first note that the trial court found that appellant demonstrated a lack of commitment by failing to regularly support, visit, or communicate with Robert. Appellant has not challenged the court's finding and evidence in the record clearly supports the finding. Appellant's relatives have cared for Robert since he was two years old. Since that time, appellant has not provided day-to-day care for Robert. For one year, she lived in Kentucky and had absolutely no contact with Robert. Again, the record amply demonstrates that Robert cannot or should not be placed with appellant within a reasonable time. See R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a) and (E)(4).

Section 2151.414(E) requires a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent when clear and convincing evidence establishes that the parent will remain incarcerated and unavailable to care for the child for at least eighteen months or has previously lost parental rights to the child's siblings through involuntary permanent-custody orders.

In Re Silva, Unpublished Decision (2-14-2005) · filed 2005-02-14(E)(12), (E)(13)

Appellant is incarcerated and will be until 2007. T. at 10, 12; Plaintiff's Exhibit 1. Obviously she will be unable to care for the child for a period in excess of eighteen months beyond the date of the permanent custody hearing [R.C. 2151.414 (E)(12)]. She previously lost two children to involuntary grants of permanent custody [R.C. 2151.414 (E)(13)]. T. at 11-12; Plaintiff's Exhibits 2 and 3. {¶ 23} The father did not appear for the hearing. T. at 4-5, 7. His last visitation with the child was in August of 2003. T. at 7. He has not provided any support or financial assistance to the child. T. at 7-8. He has not completed any of the case plan objectives, and is currently wanted on outstanding felony arrest warrants. T. at 8-9. {¶ 24} We find clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's decision that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent.

Section 2151.414(E) requires a court to consider the statutory factors and all relevant evidence when deciding whether a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parents.

In Re Greathouse, Unpublished Decision (5-18-2005) · filed 2005-05-18(E)

R.C. 2151.414 (E) sets forth the factors the trial court is to consider when determining whether a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with the parents. ... Upon a review of the evidence in light of the above statutory factors, we find the record contains clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's determination. Accordingly, the trial court did not err when it determined Destiny could not be placed with appellant within a reasonable time or should not be placed with appellant.

R.C. 2151.414 permits a finding that children cannot or should not be placed with a parent when the parent allowed abuse or neglect whose seriousness or likelihood of recurrence makes placement a threat to the children, demonstrated a lack of commitment and inability to provide an adequate home, or repeatedly failed to remedy the conditions that caused removal despite reasonable case planning and diligent agency assistance.

In Re Reardon, Unpublished Decision (2-7-2006) · filed 2006-02-07(E)(1), (E)(4), (E)(15)

{¶ 34} The court cited the factors in R.C. 2151.414 , in particular R.C. 2151.414 (E)(15) [the parent had allowed the child to be abused or neglected, and the serious, nature or likelihood of the re-occurrence of the abuse or neglect makes the child's placement with the parent a threat to the child's safety]. The court did not cite any other portions of the statute, but used language contained in (E)(4) [the parent had demonstrated a lack of commitment to the child and failed to provide an adequate home for them at the present time and cannot do so within a year]. The court's findings also mirror the language contained in (E) (1) [notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parent to remedy the problems which caused the child to be initially 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]. {¶ 35} The court found it was in the best interest of Malachi and Mariah to be placed in the permanent custody of JFS. We find the record contains sufficient competent and credible evidence to support this finding.

Section 2151.414(E) requires a finding that a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with a parent when clear and convincing evidence establishes any one listed factor, including the parent's continuous and repeated failure to substantially remedy the conditions causing removal under subsection (E)(1).

In the Matter of King, Unpublished Decision (2-15-2006) · filed 2006-02-15(E)(1)

Revised Code 2151.414(E) sets forth the factors a trial court must consider in determining whether a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with a parent. See R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a). If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence the existence of any one of the factors, "the court shall enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with [the] parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent". R.C. 2151.414 (E). Thus, the existence of one factor alone will support a finding that the child cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable time. See In re: William S. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 95 , 661 N.E.2d 738 ; In re: Hurlow (Sept. 21, 1998), Gallia App. No. 98 CA 6; In re: Butcher (Apr. 10, 1991), Athens App. No. 1470. ... For the foregoing reasons, this court concludes that the trial court's finding that Monica cannot be placed with appellant within a reasonable time is supported by competent credible evidence. While appellant may have complied with some aspects of the case plan, appellant did not successfully complete the case plan or remedy the problems identified by the Agency. See In re: Swisher, Tuscarawas App. No. 2003 APO 40028, 2003-Ohio-3747.

Section 2151.414(E) requires the court to consider sixteen factors in deciding whether children can be returned to their parents within a reasonable time, and a finding that they cannot be returned must be supported by clear and convincing evidence.

In Re Thornton, Unpublished Decision (5-15-2006) · filed 2006-05-15(E)

R.C. 2151.414 (E) sets forth sixteen factors for the court to consider in determining whether the children can be returned to the parents within a reasonable time or should be placed with either parent. ... We have reviewed the record, and we find there is sufficient competent and credible evidence contained therein to justify the court's finding by clear and convincing evidence the children cannot and should not be placed with their mother within a reasonable time.

Division (E) permits a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time based on any one of its listed factors.

In Re Pettiford, Unpublished Decision (7-11-2006) · filed 2006-07-11(E)

A trial court may base its decision that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time upon the existence of any one of the above factors. The existence of one factor alone will support a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

Section 2151.414(E)(1), (2), and (4) supports a finding that a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time when the parent repeatedly fails to address severe substance abuse despite agency assistance and demonstrates no commitment to the child through visitation, communication, or support.

In Re Distafano, Unpublished Decision (8-28-2006) · filed 2006-08-28(E)(1), (E)(2), and (E)(4)

This testimony indicates unwillingness on the part of Williams to comply with the court ordered case plan and to make the lifestyle changes necessary for her to raise Jacqueline. Thus, the first and second factors of R.C. 2151.414 (E) apply. ... This failure to demonstrate a commitment to Jacqueline is addressed in the fourth factor set forth in R.C. 2151.414 . Based upon this undisputed evidence, a reasonable person could conclude that Jacqueline cannot be placed with her mother within a reasonable time and that it would be in her best interests for permanent custody to be granted to the Agency.

Section 2151.414(E) requires a court granting permanent custody to find that the child cannot be returned to either parent.

In Re E.S.B., Unpublished Decision (9-28-2006) · filed 2006-09-28(E)

To grant permanent custody, the court is required to find that the child cannot be returned to either parent. See R.C. 2151.414 (E).

Section 2151.414(E) requires the court to consider its listed factors when deciding whether a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent, and clear and convincing evidence supported that finding where the father delayed or failed to comply with court orders and went extended periods without visiting the child.

In Re Downing, Unpublished Decision (10-23-2006) · filed 2006-10-23(E)

In determining whether a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with a parent, the court must consider the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414 (E). ... We have reviewed the record, and we find there is sufficient competent and credible evidence from which the trial court could conclude by clear and convincing evidence the child could not be placed with either of her parents within a reasonable time.

Section 2151.414(E) requires a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent when clear and convincing evidence establishes any one listed factor, including abandonment or a prior involuntary termination of parental rights as to a sibling.

In the Matter of Harness, Unpublished Decision (11-22-2006) · filed 2006-11-22(E)(10), (E)(11)

R.C. 2151.414 (E) sets forth the factors a trial court must consider in determining whether a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time. See R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a). If a court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, the existence of any one of the following factors, "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": * * * (10) The parent has abandoned the child. (11) The parent has had parental rights involuntarily terminated pursuant to this section or section 2151.353 or 2151.415 of the Revised Code with respect to a sibling of the child. A trial court may base its decision that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time upon the existence of any one of the above factors. The existence of one factor alone will support a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(a) requires a court deciding whether a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent to consider one or more factors in division (E), including a parent's continuous and repeated failure to substantially remedy the conditions that caused the child's removal despite reasonable case planning and diligent agency efforts.

In Re Brunner, 2006 Ca 00375 (8-13-2007) · filed 2007-08-13(B)(1)(a), (E)(1)

Ohio's present statutory scheme requires a court, in determining whether a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with the parents (see R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a), supra), to consider the existence of one or more factors under R.C. 2151.414 (E), including whether or not "[following the placement of the child outside the child's home and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the child's home." See R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1); In re Bender , Stark App. No. 2004CA00015, 2004-Ohio-2268 . ... Based on the foregoing, we find the trial court's conclusions pursuant to R.C. § 2151.414 (B) as to appellant, are supported by the weight and sufficiency of the evidence.

Section 2151.414(E) requires a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent when clear and convincing evidence establishes one or more listed parental conditions, including failure to remedy the conditions causing placement, lack of commitment, a severely disabling intellectual condition, or another relevant protection risk.

In Re Nichols, 1-07-18 (12-26-2007) · filed 2007-12-26(E)(1), (E)(2), (E)(4), (E)(16)

R.C. 2151.414 (E) provides in pertinent part: 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 determined, by clear and convincing evidence at a hearing* * * 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 : ... After reviewing the record, we find there is clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's findings that R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) and (E)(4) apply in this case. ... Accordingly, we find the record contains competent credible evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that Teresa's mental retardation is so severe and prevents Teresa from providing an adequate permanent home at the present time and as anticipated within one year. ... Even though Nichols is currently incarcerated and there were no allegations that Nichols had abused his and Teresa's own children, the record clearly supports the trial court's finding that Teresa would not protect the children from potential sex abuse. ... After reviewing the record, we find that there is clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's findings that the children cannot be returned to Teresa within a reasonable period of time or should not be returned to her.

A finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent may rest on any single factor in § 2151.414(E).

In Re Randy, 2007-Ca-00259 (4-21-2008) · filed 2008-04-21(E)

A trial court may base its decision that a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with a parent upon the existence of any one of the R.C. 2151.414 (E) factors. The existence of one factor alone will support a finding that the child cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable time.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(a) permits permanent custody when a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time, and a parent’s lack of progress on the case plan can support that determination even if the child has never lived in the parent’s home.

In Re Dunn, 2008ap030021 (7-28-2008) · filed 2008-07-28(B)(1)(a)

R.C. 2151.414 governs procedures upon the filing of a motion for permanent custody. ... The gravamen of this appeal is whether the evidence supports the conclusion that with reasonable efforts, the child cannot be placed with appellant. ... Although the child has never been in the home, we concur with the trial court's view that the lack of progress with the case plan is sufficient to support the decision to grant permanent custody to appellee.

Under subsection (E), the court must consider all relevant evidence, and proof of any one listed factor is sufficient to require a finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

In Re Stephanie S., 2008-Ca-19 (10-17-2008) · filed 2008-10-17(E)

The court must consider all relevant evidence before determining the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parents. R.C. 2151.414 (E). The statute also indicates that if the court makes a finding under R.C. 2151.414 (E) (1) — (15), the court shall determine the children cannot or should not be placed with the parent. A trial court may base its decision that a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with a parent upon the existence of any one of the R.C. 2151.414 (E) factors. The existence of one factor alone will support a finding that the child cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable time. ... Based upon the foregoing, we determine upon a thorough review of the record that clear and convincing evidence supports the juvenile court's finding that the child could not or should not be returned to the appellant-mother within a reasonable time. Despite offering numerous services, the appellant-mother was unable to mitigate the concerns that led to the child's removal.

Section 2151.414 permits permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence establishes that custody is in the child's best interest and that the child cannot or should not be placed with a parent, and any single factor under division (E), including a parent's repeated failure to substantially remedy the conditions causing removal, can support the latter finding.

In Matter of Winland, Ct2008-0030 (12-10-2008) · filed 2008-12-10(B)(1)(a), (D), (E)(1)

Therefore, R.C. 2151.414 (B) establishes a two-pronged analysis the trial court must apply when ruling on a motion for permanent custody. ... A trial court may base its decision that a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with a parent upon the existence of any one of the R.C. 2151.414 (E) factors. The existence of one factor alone will support a finding that the child cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable time. ... Based upon the foregoing, we determine upon a thorough review of the record that clear and convincing evidence supports the juvenile court's finding that the child could not or should not be returned to the appellant-father within a reasonable time.

Sections 2151.414(B)(1)(a) and (E) require a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent when clear and convincing evidence establishes at least one enumerated condition as to each parent.

In Matter of H.R., 2008-G-2866 (2-25-2009) · filed 2009-02-25(B)(1)(a), (E)

Under R.C. 2151.414 (E), the juvenile court must consider all relevant evidence before making this determination. The juvenile court is required to enter such a finding if it determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that one or more of the conditions enumerated in R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) through (16) exist with respect to each of the child's parents. ... The evidence establishes Mrs. Yopko's inconsistent efforts to treat her severe alcoholism and her inability to parent as a result of it. Given the critical need for H.R. to have a stable environment for her development, as testified to by the witnesses, we conclude the trial court's determination that she cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time is supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 2151.414(E) requires the trial court to consider all relevant evidence and to find that a child cannot or should not be placed with the parents when clear and convincing evidence establishes at least one enumerated factor as to each parent.

In re A.P. · filed 2011-01-31(E)

If the child is not abandoned or orphaned, then the focus turns to whether the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with the parents. Under R.C. 2151.414(E), the trial court must consider all relevant evidence before making this determination. The trial court is required to enter such a finding if it determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that one or more of the factors enumerated in R .C. 2151.414(E)(1) through (16) exist with respect to each of the child's parents.

Section 2151.414(B)(2) requires permanent custody when the child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time and permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In re A.L. · filed 2012-02-08(B)(2)

“With respect to a motion made pursuant to division (D)(2) of section 2151.413 of the Revised Code, the court shall grant permanent custody of the child to the movant if the court determines in accordance with division (E) of this section that the child cannot be placed with one of the child's parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent and determines in accordance with division (D) of this section that permanent custody is in the child's best interest.” ... Upon review, we find the trial court did not commit reversible error, as urged by appellant, in determining that A.L. and J.L. could not or should not be placed with the mother, Debra Lucas, within a reasonable time under R.C. 2151.414(B)(2).

When a factor under division (E)(6) is established by clear and convincing evidence, the court must find that the child cannot be placed with the affected parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with that parent.

In re J.B. · filed 2012-07-05(E)(6)

The mother’s conviction for child endangering in violation of R.C. 2919.22(A) is undisputed. That factor having been established by clear and convincing evidence, the court was required to find that the children could not be placed with her within a reasonable period of time.

Section 2151.414(E) permits a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time when any one listed factor is present.

In re N.S. · filed 2012-10-15(E)

A trial court may base its decision that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time if it finds any one of the factors listed in R.C. 2151.414 is present. The existence of a single factor will support a finding the child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time. See In Re: William S., 75 Ohio St. 3d 95, 661 N.E. 2d 738 (1996).

Section 2151.414(E) permits a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent based on any one of its enumerated factors.

In re C.G. · filed 2013-01-16(E)

The statute also indicates if the court makes a finding under R.C. 2151.414(E) (1) – (15), the court shall determine the children cannot or should not be placed with the parent. A trial court may base its decision that a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with a parent upon the existence of any one of the R.C. 2151.414(E) factors. The existence of one factor alone will support a finding that the child cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable time.

Section 2151.414(E) requires a court to consider all relevant evidence and to find that a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time when clear and convincing evidence establishes any listed factor; a father's irregular presence in the home, lack of independent housing, and failure to provide regular financial support supported that finding.

In re S.L. · filed 2013-03-06(E)

R.C. 2151.414(E) provides that the court shall consider all relevant evidence in determining whether a child can be placed with its parents within a reasonable time. This section also provides that if a court determines by clear and convincing evidence that any of several findings exist, the court shall make a finding that the children cannot be placed with the parents. ... The evidence in the record indicates the father was not regularly in the home, did not have independent housing, and failed to provide regular financial support for the children. Given the father's inability to become more involved and provide support for the mother, we find no error in the court's decision that the children could not be placed with the father within a reasonable time.

Section 2151.414(E)(15) supports a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent when serious abuse or neglect and the likelihood of recurrence make returning the child a threat to the child’s safety.

In re M.H. · filed 2013-12-18(E)(15)

In regard to R.C. 2151.414(E)(15), the trial court found that the abuse and neglect of M.H. was so serious and the likelihood of recurrence was so concerning that any return to Mother presented a threat to the child’s safety. ... Consequently, the evidence supported the trial court decision that returning M.H. to Mother’s care would pose a threat to M.H.’s physical and mental safety. See R.C. 2151.414(E)(15).

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(a) applies when a child is neither abandoned nor orphaned but cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

In re J.P. · filed 2023-04-18(B)(1)(a)

Here, R.C. §2151.414(B)(1)(a) applies as the trial court found that J.P. is not abandoned or orphaned and cannot be placed with either of J.P.’s parents within a reasonable time.

Section 2151.414(E) permits a finding that a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time when clear and convincing evidence supports statutory factors such as withheld medical treatment, drug abuse, or prior involuntary termination of parental rights to a sibling.

In Re Burton, Unpublished Decision (8-2-2004) · filed 2004-08-02(E)

Although the trial court's judgment entry is general, a review of the record in this case reveals specific facts that support the trial court's finding that Dominic could not be placed with White within a reasonable time pursuant to provisions of R.C. 2151.414 (E). At least three of the statutory factors are pertinent to White's particular circumstances: the parent has repeatedly withheld medical treatment from the child; the parent has placed the child at substantial risk of harm due to drug abuse; and the parent has had parental rights involuntarily terminated with respect to a sibling of the child. R.C. 2151.414 (E)(8), (9), and (11), respectively. ... Based on this evidence, we find that clear and convincing evidence existed for the trial court to grant permanent custody of Dominic to Family Services.

Section 2151.414 treats a permanent-commitment hearing as adjudicatory, and reliance on inadmissible hearsay evidence is prejudicial error.

In Re duncan/walker Children · filed 1996-03-18(C)

A permanent commitment hearing under R.C. 2151.414 is adjudicatory, and the reliance upon inadmissible hearsay evidence is prejudicial error.

Section 2151.414(C) requires a child’s guardian ad litem to submit a written report to the court before or at the hearing held under division (A).

Matter of Conger, Unpublished Decision (6-30-1997) · filed 1997-06-30(C)

The guardian filed her report in compliance with R.C. 2151.414 (C). ... R.C. 2151.414 (C) provides that "[a] written report of the guardian ad litem of the child shall be submitted to the court prior to or at the time of the hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this section * * *."

Section 2151.414(A) requires the trial court to conduct a best-interests hearing before terminating parental rights and granting permanent custody to an agency.

Matter of Lewis, Unpublished Decision (6-15-1998) · filed 1998-06-15(A)

In Wallace , we held based upon a reading of R.C. 2151.414 , a trial court must conduct the hearing provided for in section (A) of the statute before it can terminate parental rights and grant permanent custody to the Agency.

Section 2151.414(C) requires the guardian ad litem to submit a written report to the court before or at the hearing on the motion for permanent custody.

In the Matter of Christopher B., Unpublished Decision (3-17-2000) · filed 2000-03-17(C)

R.C. 2151.414 (C) provides that the guardian ad litem shall submit a written report to the trial court prior to or at the time of the hearing on the motion for permanent custody. ... The record further reveals that the guardian filed his report on February 1, 1999, before the disposition phase of the trial began, and that appellant did not raise the issue of the timeliness of the report. ... Accordingly, this potential argument is without merit.

Section 2151.414(A)(1) requires the trial court to hold a hearing to determine whether permanently terminating parental rights and granting permanent custody to the moving agency is in the child's best interest before it may grant permanent custody.

In Matter of Fell, Unpublished Decision (9-29-2005) · filed 2005-09-29(A)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 (A)(1) mandates that a trial court "shall conduct a hearing in accordance with section 2151.35 of the Revised Code 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." We have previously held that a trial court must conduct the hearing provided for in section R.C. 2151.414 (A)(1) before it can terminate parental rights and grant permanent custody to the agency. See In re Redrick Children (Oct. 3, 2000), Stark App. No. 2000CA00182. ... Upon review of the record, we find the trial court sufficiently complied with the above statutory requirements for reviewing "best interest."

Section 2151.414(A)(2) requires a hearing on an agency's permanent-custody motion within 120 days after filing, subject to a reasonable continuance for good cause.

In Re A.U., 22264 (1-11-2008) · filed 2008-01-11(A)(2)

MCCS's motion for permanent custody, which is at issue, was subsequently filed pursuant to R.C. 2151.413 , R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a), and R.C. 2151.414 (E). As argued by MCCS, when a motion for permanent custody has been filed under R.C. 2151.413 , the court must schedule a hearing to be held not later than 120 days after the agency files the motion. R.C. 2151.414 (A)(2). The hearing may be continued for a reasonable period of time beyond the 120-day deadline for "good cause shown." Id. {¶ 11} In this case, the magistrate held a hearing on the motion for permanent custody within 120 days of the filing of MCCS's motion. Accordingly, the hearing was held in a timely manner.

The 120-day deadline for a permanent-custody hearing is not jurisdictional, and failure to meet it does not require dismissal or invalidate the court's order.

In Re S.H., 24055 (6-25-2008) · filed 2008-06-25(A)(2)

R.C. 2151.414 (A)(2) specifically states that failure to hold a permanent custody hearing within 120 days of the filing of the motion "does not affect the authority of the court to issue any order under this chapter and does not provide any basis for attacking the jurisdiction of the court or the validity of any order of the court." R.C. 2151.414 (A)(2). Ohio decisional law also supports the conclusion that this requirement is not jurisdictional and does not require a dismissal of the action.

Section 2151.414(A)(2)'s deadlines for holding a permanent-custody hearing and disposing of the motion are not jurisdictional, and failure to meet them does not require reversal or dismissal.

In Re M. W., 08ca0020 (9-8-2008) · filed 2008-09-08(A)(2)

The final paragraph of R.C. 2151.414 (A)(2) explicitly indicates that a failure to comply with these time periods does not affect the authority of the court to proceed, the jurisdiction of the court, or the validity of any order of the court. R.C. 2151.414 (A)(2). Ohio courts have routinely held that these time periods are not jurisdictional and do not require a reversal or dismissal.

Before accepting a parent's waiver of a permanent-custody hearing, the court must engage in meaningful dialogue ensuring the waiver is voluntary and the parent understands the rights and consequences involved.

In re R.J. · filed 2016-02-12(B)

“In a case where parental rights are permanently terminated, it is of utmost importance that the parties fully understand their rights and that any waiver is made with full knowledge of those rights and the consequences which will follow.”

Section 2151.414 requires a juvenile court to independently determine the relevant statutory criteria and other relevant evidence for each child in a multichild permanent-custody proceeding, while allowing evidence of mistreatment of a sibling to inform the determination.

In Re Hiatt · filed 1993-03-16(B)

We agree with the appellant that the law requires the trial court to make an independent determination of the relevant criteria in R.C. 2151.414(B) and all other relevant evidence independently for each child in a multichild permanent custody proceeding.

Section 2151.414 requires independent consideration of each child, but does not require separate findings for every child in the judgment entry when the record shows individualized consideration and no party requested specific findings.

In Re Gau, Unpublished Decision (05-18-2001) · filed 2001-05-18(B), (C)

The Hiatt court did not require that the judgment entry contain an independent determination on each child, but rather found that where the record demonstrated that the trial court had considered the relevant criteria and evidence for each child individually, no error was present. ... Further, if a parent failed to request specific findings of fact and conclusions of law under R.C. 2151.414 (C), he cannot complain that the trial court did not give an independent determination on each child in the judgment entry.