Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2151.414

Section 2151.414(B)(1) may be satisfied on different grounds for siblings, including the twelve-of-twenty-two-month ground for one child and the inability-to-place ground for another.

In re L.S. · filed 2019-08-05(B)(1)(a), (B)(1)(d)

Despite Mother and Father's claims, there can be no dispute that J.S. had been in the temporary custody of BCCS for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period at the time BCCS filed its motion for permanent custody. L.S., however, had not. Because the 12-of-22 factor did not apply to L.S., the juvenile court instead found L.S. could not be placed with either Mother or Father within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either Mother or Father.

Section 2151.414(A) places the required permanent-custody notice duty on the court, while divisions (B) and (D) treat adoption probability as only one best-interest factor and division (E) requires a finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent when clear and convincing evidence establishes an enumerated criterion.

In Re Shaeffer Children · filed 1993-03-30(A), (B), (D), (E)(1), (E)(4)

However, requirements set forth in R.C. 2151.414(A) govern the notice which must be provided by the court, not the petitioner, in these cases. ... Thus, pursuant to the statute, the probability of a child’s adoption is just one factor, out of all which are relevant, that the trial court must consider. Under the statute, even in the absence of clear and convincing evidence of one of the enumerated factors, a trial court could still properly determine that granting permanent custody to a state agency is in a child’s best interest. ... However, if there is clear and convincing evidence of one or more of eight enumerated criteria, R.C. 2151.414(E) requires the court to find that 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(E) requires clear and convincing evidence that at least one of its eight enumerated factors exists before a court may grant permanent custody.

In re William S. · filed 1996-03-04(E)

We hold that permanent custody may not be granted unless the trial court finds clear and convincing evidence that one or more of the eight enumerated factors in R.C. 2151.414(E) exist.

Section 2151.414(A) requires notice of a permanent-custody hearing, and actual knowledge of a continued hearing date can satisfy that requirement; divisions (B), (D), and (E) require clear-and-convincing best-interest and reasonable-time placement findings based on the statutory factors.

Matter of Brodzenski, Unpublished Decision (10-26-1998) · filed 1998-10-26(A), (B), (D), and (E)

We do not find this failure of service, of the continued hearing date, denied the trial court jurisdiction to hear the motion to terminate appellant's parental rights. ... As such, we find appellant had notice of the hearing as required by R.C. 2151.414 (A). ... This statute provides: (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. ... In determining the best interest of the child, R.C. 2151.414 (D) provides: In determining the best interest of a child at a hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this section or for the purposes of division (A)(4) or (5) of section 2151.353 * * * or division (C) of section 2151.415 * * * of the Revised Code, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to the following: ... Based upon our review of the record, we find the trial court's determination that it was in the best interest of the minor child to grant permanent custody to the Agency is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. ... As noted above, the evidence clearly supports the trial court's findings under R.C. 2151.414 (E).

Section 2151.414(B) requires clear and convincing findings that the agency made a good faith effort to reunify the family, the parent will continue to leave the child without adequate parental care, and terminating parental rights is in the child's best interests before permanent custody is granted.

Matter of Potter, Unpublished Decision (6-4-1999) · filed 1999-06-04(B)

Prior to terminating parental rights and granting permanent custody of a child to a county children services agency, a trial court must find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the agency made a good faith effort to reunify the family, that the parents acted so as to leave the child without adequate parental care and will continue to do so in the near future, and that it is in the best interests of the child to permanently terminate parental rights.

Section 2151.414 requires clear-and-convincing permanent-custody findings, consideration of specified placement and best-interest factors, and a guardian ad litem report by the statutory hearing.

In Re Gibson, Unpublished Decision (2-10-2000) · filed 2000-02-10(B), (C), (D), and (E)

In considering an award of permanent custody, the court must determine whether, by clear and convincing evidence, it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody and that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time. See R.C. 2151.414 (B). In determining whether a child can be placed with either parent in a reasonable time, the court must consider the eight enumerated factors listed in R.C. 2151.414 (E). ... Additionally, the cursory findings by the court may not satisfy the requirements of the statute, which contemplates comprehensive findings before an award of permanent custody of a child may be made to an agency. ... In determining the best interest of the children during the permanent custody hearing, the court must consider the five factors listed in R.C. 2151.414 (D), which include the reasonable probability the child will be adopted, the interaction of the child with her parents, siblings and foster parents, the wishes of the child, the custodial history of the child, and the child's need for a legal secure permanent placement. ... R.C. 2151.414 (C) provides in part: * * * 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 the this section * * * *. ... In light of this fact, and the fact that Jenkins cannot prove he has been prejudiced, we conclude the court did not err in accepting the guardian ad litem's report after the conclusion of the hearing.

Section 2151.414(C) requires a guardian ad litem's written report before or at the permanent-custody hearing, but an objection to its absence is waived when not raised below and the guardian's oral, cross-examined testimony causes no prejudice; under Section 2151.414(E)(1), continuous and repeated failure to remedy removal conditions requires a finding that the child cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable time.

In the Matter of Thomas, Unpublished Decision (3-9-2000) · filed 2000-03-09(C) and (E)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 (C) provides: In making [permanent custody determinations], a court shall not consider the effect the granting of permanent custody to the agency would have upon any parent of the child. 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 or section 2151.35 of the Revised Code but shall not be submitted under oath. ... This court has held that any claim of error arising from a guardian ad litem's failure to file a written report is waived when the argument is not raised in the trial court. ... The record shows no prejudice because the guardian ad litem testified orally at the hearing and was subject to full cross-examination. Nor can Thomas show plain error because she cannot show the result of trial would have been different if a written report (repeating the oral report) had been filed. Accordingly, Thomas' assigned error is overruled. ... If it is shown by clear and convincing evidence that a parent has continuously and repeatedly failed to substantially remedy the conditions which led to the grant of temporary custody of her children to a children's services agency, the court must find that the children cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable time. ... The evidence presented before the juvenile court made clear that the conditions which led to the temporary custody order had not been rectified by Thomas nearly five years later. Under the circumstances, we conclude that the trial court properly concluded that Thomas' children could not be placed with her within a reasonable time.

Section 2151.414(B) permits permanent custody only when clear and convincing evidence shows both that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent under section 2151.414(E) and that permanent custody is in the child's best interest under section 2151.414(D).

In the Matter of Gilbert, Unpublished Decision (3-23-2000) · filed 2000-03-23(B), (D), and (E)(4)

Under R.C. 2151.353 (A)(4) and R.C. 2151.414 (B), the juvenile court is authorized to grant permanent custody to the agency if, from clear and convincing evidence presented at a hearing, the court determines (1) in accordance with R.C. 2151.414 (E) 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 (2) in accordance with R.C. 2151.414 (D) that the permanent commitment is in the best interest of the child.

Section 2151.414(B) does not require a trial court to use specific words stating that a child cannot or should not be placed with the parents when the judgment entry supports that conclusion.

In the Matter of Curtis, Unpublished Decision (4-20-2000) · filed 2000-04-20(B)

However, R.C. 2151.414 (B) does not require that the trial court state any magic words thus triggering the propriety of a grant of permanent custody. Rather the statute mandates that the grant of permanent custody be supported by certain criteria as stated above. The failure of the trial court to use the words "the child cannot be placed with either of his parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with his parents" is not a per se violation of the statutory criteria as long as the judgment entry granting permanent custody supports such conclusion.

Section 2151.414(E) requires the court to find that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent; more specific findings are unnecessary unless requested under Section 2151.414(C).

In Re: Denny, Unpublished Decision (7-17-2000) · filed 2000-07-17(E)

The trial court, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (E) was only required to enter a finding that "the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the either parent." The trial court made such a finding in its Judgment Entry: "Deshone Denny cannot be placed with any biological parent at this time or in the foreseeable future; Deshone Denny should not be placed with any biological parent. . . ." We find that the trial court made the specific finding as required by R.C. 2151.414 (E).

Under § 2151.414(E), a trial court's failure to state expressly that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time is harmless when the judgment sets forth statutory factors supporting permanent custody.

In the Matter Seagro, Unpublished Decision (9-21-2000) · filed 2000-09-21(E)

Although the trial court did not specifically find that the children could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, the trial court did set forth two of the conditions listed in R.C. 2151.414 (E) which support its finding that Family Services should receive permanent custody. ... Therefore, although the trial court did not enter the required finding, this was harmless error, as the basis for the trial court's decision was set forth.

When a child has been in an agency's temporary custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, the court need not make the additional finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or consider the factors listed in subsection (E).

In Re Stephen Fox, Jr., Kali Fox, Unpublished Decision (9-27-2000) · filed 2000-09-27(B)(1)

The juvenile court is required to make an additional finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent only where the child has not been abandoned, orphaned or has not been in temporary custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period. See R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1). ... This means that the juvenile court was not required to make a finding pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (E) as Appellant contends. ... Nor was it obligated to consider the factors listed in R.C. 2151.414 (E) and determine the existence of any of the factors listed in that section. Accordingly, this assignment of error is overruled.

Section 2151.414 requires a juvenile court deciding permanent custody to consider specified best-interest and parental-placement factors and make the resulting findings by clear and convincing evidence.

In Re Benoit, Unpublished Decision (11-2-2000) · filed 2000-11-02(D), (E)

R.C. 2151.414 sets forth the factors a trial court must consider in determining the best interest of a child and whether a child cannot be placed with his parents. ... Once a court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, one of the enumerated factors exists, the court must enter a finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with either of his parents within a reasonable time. ... However, the trial court failed to make these mandatory findings in its entry granting CCDCFS custody. Accordingly, we vacate the journal entry and reinstate the order granting temporary custody of the children to CCDCFS pending journalization of an entry comporting with the requirements of R.C. 2151.414 ; and remand.

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

In Re Dixon, Unpublished Decision (11-6-2000) · filed 2000-11-06(A)

In both of these cases, we held that "* * * 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(B)(1) requires clear and convincing findings that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

In Re Freeland, Unpublished Decision (8-9-2000) · filed 2000-08-09(B)(1)

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 the grant of permanent custody to the agency 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 either parent. See R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1); see also, In re William S. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 95 , 99 .

A best-interest finding alone is insufficient under section 2151.414 to grant permanent custody and terminate parental rights.

In the Matter of Porter-Ardis Children, Unpublished Decision (4-26-2002) · filed 2002-04-26(B), (E)

However, a best interest determination, standing alone, is not sufficient to grant permanent custody of a child to an agency and divest parents of their parental rights.

For a child who is neither abandoned nor orphaned, section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence both that permanent agency custody serves the child's best interest and that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent.

In Re Kinney, Unpublished Decision (5-10-2002) · filed 2002-05-10(B), (D), (E)

Before a juvenile court may terminate parental rights with regard to a child who is not abandoned or orphaned, it must apply a two-prong test. The juvenile court must find by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child to be placed in the permanent custody of the DJFS, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (D), and that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414 (E).

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence of an enumerated parental-placement condition and that permanent custody is in the child's best interest before a court may terminate parental rights and award permanent custody to an agency.

In the Matter of Crystal, Unpublished Decision (1-14-2004) · filed 2004-01-14(B)(1), (D), and (E)

In granting a motion for permanent custody, the trial court must find that there is clear and convincing evidence that one or more of the conditions listed in R.C. 2151.414 (E) exist as to each of the child's parents. If, after considering all the relevant evidence, the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that one or more of those conditions exist, the court can and must enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with either of his or her parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1). Further, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (D), a juvenile court must consider the best interest of the child by examining factors relevant to that case. Only if these findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence can a juvenile court terminate the rights of a natural parent and award permanent custody of a child to a children services agency. ... Based upon the evidence summarized above and the law, we find that the Sandusky County Department of Jobs Family Services presented sufficient evidence to create in the mind of the trial court a firm conviction that Crystal S. could not be placed with her mother within a reasonable time or should not be placed with her, and that it was in the child's best interest to grant permanent custody to the Sandusky County Department of Jobs Family Services.

Section 2151.414 permits termination of parental rights only upon clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot or should not be placed with a parent, that permanent custody with a children's services agency is in the child's best interests, and that at least one statutory predicate finding applies.

In Re Keiondre S., Unpublished Decision (11-24-2004) · filed 2004-11-24(B), (D), and (E)

R.C. 2151.414 provides that a parent's rights may not be terminated unless the court finds evidence that 1) the child, "* * * cannot be placed with one of the child's parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent," R.C. 2151.414 (B)(2), and 2) that a grant of permanent custody of a child to a children's service agency is in the child's best interests. R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1). The statute sets forth a list of 16 predicate findings, one of which must be established prior to a judicial conclusion that a child cannot or should not be placed with the child's parent. R.C. 2151.414 (E); In re William S. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 95 , syllabus. The statute also enumerates certain criteria for evaluating whether permanent custody with a children's services agency is in the child's best interests. R.C. 2151.414 (D)(1) through (4). All of the court's findings must be supported by clear and convincing evidence, R.C. 2151.414 (B), and will not be overturned as against the manifest weight of the evidence if the record contains competent credible evidence by which the court could have formed a firm belief or conviction that the essential statutory elements for a termination of parental rights have been established.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(a) requires a court granting permanent custody to find 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; the latter determination requires one of the conditions enumerated in subsection (E).

In Re Aaron F., Unpublished Decision (12-30-2004) · filed 2004-12-30(B)(1)(a), (E)

Prior to granting an agency permanent custody, R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a) requires the court to make two findings: (1) that a grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the child's best interest, and (2) that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time. In order to find that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time, a court must make a finding under R.C. 2151.414 (E). ... Accordingly, though the court erroneously made a finding as to LCCS' reunification efforts, the error was harmless because the court found 1 of the 16 enumerated conditions under R.C. 2151.414 (E).

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(a) 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 Ohler, Unpublished Decision (3-24-2005) · filed 2005-03-24(B)(1)(a)

R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a) requires the trial court to find that granting permanent custody to HCCS is in the best interest of the children and that the children cannot, or should not, be reunited with either parent within a reasonable time.

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 when the child is not abandoned or orphaned and has not been in agency custody for at least twelve months.

In Re Capasso, Unpublished Decision (4-4-2005) · filed 2005-04-04

Ohio law provides that before a juvenile court can terminate parental rights and award permanent custody of a child to an agency of the state when the child is neither abandoned nor orphaned and who has not been in the temporary custody of an agency for twelve or more months, the court must find by clear and convincing evidence that, (1) the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child, and (2) the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) requires clear and convincing proof that permanent custody serves the child's best interests and that one of the four statutory factors applies.

In Re Dailey, Unpublished Decision (5-5-2005) · filed 2005-05-05(B)(1)

In order to terminate parental rights, the movant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the child's best interests are served by a grant of permanent custody to FCCS, and (2) one of the four factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1).

Section 2151.414(B)(1) permits termination of parental rights absent a parental stipulation only upon clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and that one of the four statutory circumstances applies.

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

{¶ 38} Absent appellant's stipulation, a juvenile court may terminate a parent's parental rights only if the evidence adduced clearly and convincingly shows 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: ... {¶ 43} No evidence was presented regarding the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a) through (d). The matter progressed from the colloquy regarding appellant's stipulations directly to a best interests hearing. In re Smith (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 1 , 15-16 , 601 N.E.2d 45, 54-55. Thus, there was no evidence adduced to support a grant of permanent custody to SCDJFS. Accordingly, this Court must reverse the grant of permanent custody.

Section 2151.414 permits a juvenile court to terminate parental rights only upon clear and convincing evidence that a listed parental-condition ground exists and that permanent custody serves the child’s best interest.

In Re Briazanna G., Unpublished Decision (6-24-2005) · filed 2005-06-24(B)(1), (D), and (E)

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

When permanent custody is sought by an original complaint, the court must determine under subsection (E) that the child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent and under subsection (D) that permanent commitment is in the child's best interest.

In Re Brittany W., Unpublished Decision (6-24-2005) · filed 2005-06-24(D), (E)

Pursuant to R.C. 2151.353 (A)(4), a trial court may commit a child to the permanent custody of a public children services agency or private child placing agency, if the court determines, in accordance with R.C. 2151.414 (E), 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 R.C. 2151.414 (D), that the permanent commitment is in the best interest of the child.

Section 2151.414 permits permanent custody only upon clear and convincing evidence that a condition in subsection (E) exists as to each parent and requires the juvenile court to consider the child’s best interest under subsection (D).

In Re Malaya H., Unpublished Decision (12-30-2005) · filed 2005-12-30(B)(1), (D), and (E)

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

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time and that permanent custody serves the child's best interest; a parent's repeated failure, despite agency assistance, to remedy the conditions that caused removal supports the former finding.

In Re Johnathon A., Unpublished Decision (4-28-2006) · filed 2006-04-28(D), (E)(1)

However, before the court can grant permanent custody of a child to the agency, the court must determine: 1) pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (E) that the child cannot or should not be placed with one of his parents within a reasonable time; and 2) pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (D), that the permanent commitment is in the best interest of the child. ... If, however, the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that any one of sixteen factors listed in the statute exist, the court must find that the child cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable time. ... Upon careful review of the record in this case, we find that LCCS made reasonable efforts to reunify appellant with her children, and that the trial court's decision granting LCCS permanent custody was supported by clear and convincing evidence. ... Based on the foregoing, we find that the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the trial court's findings that the children cannot or should not be placed with appellant and the permanent custody to LCCS is in their best interests.

When a permanent-custody order lacks the findings required by Section 2151.414(B)(1), the trial court may make those findings on remand from the existing record without holding a new evidentiary hearing.

In Re Arnold, Unpublished Decision (6-5-2006) · filed 2006-06-05(B)(1)

Under that statute, the trial court was required to find, by clear and convincing evidence, (1) that a grant of permanent custody was in the children's best interests and (2) that one of four enumerated factors existed. ... There is no reason why the trial court could not make a complete finding in accordance with In re C.W. based on the record already before the court.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) requires clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child’s best interest and that one of four enumerated factors applies.

In Re Shrider, Unpublished Decision (6-5-2006) · filed 2006-06-05(B)(1)

The Revised Code sets out a two-pronged test to be applied when considering a motion for permanent custody. Under this test, the trial court must determine, by clear and convincing evidence, (1) that a grant of permanent custody to the Department is in the best interest of the child and (2) that one of four enumerated factors applies. R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1).

Section 2151.414 permits termination of parental rights and an award of permanent custody only when clear and convincing evidence supports a listed subsection (E) condition for each parent and the subsection (D) best-interest finding.

In Re Kuashean P., Unpublished Decision (7-14-2006) · filed 2006-07-14(B)(1), (D), (E)

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

Section 2151.414 requires a juvenile court awarding permanent custody to find that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent; a parent's failure to visit and unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home establish lack of commitment under subsection (E)(4).

In Re A.N.B., Unpublished Decision (8-7-2006) · filed 2006-08-07(B), (D), and (E)(4)

R.C. 2151.414 (B) requires the juvenile court to apply a two part test when terminating parental rights and awarding permanent custody to a children services agency. Specifically, the juvenile court must find that: (1) the grant of permanent custody is in the best interest of the children, utilizing, in part, the factors of R.C. 2151.414 (D); and (2) as applicable to the present case, the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. ... Furthermore, R.C. 2151.414 (E)(4) provides that the juvenile court shall enter a finding that children cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent where 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 sum, appellant has demonstrated a lack of commitment to his children through his consistent failure to visit with them and his unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home for them. Therefore the trial court was correct in finding that the children could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child's best interests and that a listed condition applies, and proof of any subsection (E) factor requires a finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent.

In Re Charles B., Unpublished Decision (9-15-2006) · filed 2006-09-15(B)(1), (D), (E)

In order to grant permanent custody of a child to a children's services agency, the court must determine by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody was in the children's best interests and one of the following conditions has been met: (a) the child is not orphaned or abandoned and has not been in the temporary custody of the agency for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period, but 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; or (d) the child has been in the temporary custody of the agency for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period. R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1). ... The trial court must first make a finding of parental unfitness, considering the factors under R.C. 2151.414 (E). If the trial court finds by clear and convincing evidence the existence of one of the R.C. 2151.414 (E) 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." (Emphasis added.) ... Thus, based upon the evidence presented in the record, we conclude that the trial court properly considered the factors under R.C. 2151.414 (D) in making its determination that permanent custody to LCCS was in the children's best interest. ... Therefore, since both factors under R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1) were satisfied, the trial court did not err in granting the agency's request to change disposition and to grant permanent custody to LCCS.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(a) permits an award of permanent custody upon clear and convincing evidence that the award is in the child's best interest and that the child satisfies the subsection's placement conditions.

In Re J.J., Unpublished Decision (11-21-2006) · filed 2006-11-21(B)(1)(a)

FCCS sought permanent custody pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a). Pursuant to that statutory provision, a court may grant permanent custody of a child to a public children services agency if the court determines at the hearing, by clear and convincing evidence, (1) that it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody of the child to the agency, and (2) that 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 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-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.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) requires proof both that the child was in agency temporary custody for at least twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period and that permanent custody is in the child's best interests; custody duration alone is insufficient.

In Matter of Sox, Unpublished Decision (12-28-2006) · filed 2006-12-28(B)(1)

However, this alone is an insufficient reason to award permanent custody to the Board. R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1) requires both proof that the child has been in the temporary custody of the Board for more than twelve of the previous twenty-two months and that permanent custody is in the child's best interests.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) requires clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and that one of the four enumerated circumstances applies before permanent custody may be granted on an agency's motion.

In Matter of Malone, Unpublished Decision (2-26-2007) · filed 2007-02-26(B)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 establishes the procedures a court must follow and the findings it must make before granting a motion for permanent custody filed pursuant to R.C. 2151.413 . In re Arnold , 3 rd Dist. Nos. 1-04-71, 1-04-72, 1-04-73, 2005-Ohio-1418 . Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1), before a trial court can grant permanent custody of a child to a moving agency, it must find, 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: (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(B)(1) permits a juvenile court to award permanent custody only upon clear and convincing evidence of at least one enumerated condition and that permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In Re Buck, Unpublished Decision (3-22-2007) · filed 2007-03-22(B)(1)

Under R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1) a juvenile court cannot make an award of permanent custody unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that any one of the following conditions exist: (a) the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parents (b) the child is abandoned (c) the child is orphaned and there are no relatives who are able to take custody (d) the child has been in the temporary custody of one or more agencies for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22 month period The court must also find by clear and convincing evidence that the grant of permanent custody is in the best interest of the child. Id.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) requires clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child’s best interest and that one listed circumstance, such as abandonment, applies; only one listed circumstance is necessary.

In Re D.P., 06ap-780 (4-10-2007) · filed 2007-04-10(B)(1)

To terminate parental rights, the movant must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, one of the four factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1) and that the child's best interests are served by a grant of permanent custody to FCCS. ... Therefore, we find there was clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's finding that mother had abandoned child for purposes of R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(b). ... A trial court need only make one of the findings under R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1).

Section 2151.414 requires a permanent-custody court to find by clear and convincing evidence that at least one condition in subsection (E) exists as to each parent and that permanent custody is in the child's best interest after considering the relevant subsection (D) factors.

In Re Matter of Ronald H., L-06-1390 (5-25-2007) · filed 2007-05-25(B)(1), (D), (E)

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

Section 2151.414 permits a juvenile court to terminate parental rights only on clear and convincing evidence both that one of the specified threshold circumstances exists and that permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In Re A.c, Unpublished Decision (9-12-2007) · filed 2007-09-12(B)(1)-(2), (D), (E)

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

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence of both a qualifying permanent-custody predicate and the child's best interest before a juvenile court may terminate parental rights and award permanent custody to an agency.

In Re J.P.-m., Unpublished Decision (10-10-2007) · filed 2007-10-10(B)(1), (D), and (E)

Before a juvenile court may terminate parental rights and award permanent custody of a child to a proper moving agency it must find clear and convincing evidence of both prongs of the permanent custody test: (1) that the child is abandoned, orphaned, has been in the temporary custody of the agency for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, or that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414 (E); and (2) that the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414 (D). See R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1) and 2151.414 (B)(2); see, also, In re William S. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 95 , 99 .

Section 2151.414(B)(1) requires clear and convincing evidence both of an authorized basis for permanent custody and that permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In Re J.H., Unpublished Decision (10-29-2007) · filed 2007-10-29(B)(1)

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

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence that the child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time and that permanent custody is in the child's best interests; one predicate finding under division (E) compels the former finding.

In Re Jere L., Unpublished Decision (12-5-2007) · filed 2007-12-05(B), (D), (E)(1), (E)(14)

R.C. 2151.414 provides that a parent's rights may not be terminated unless the court finds evidence that (1) the child, "* * * cannot be placed with one of the child's parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent," and (2) that a grant of permanent custody of a child to a children's service agency is in the child's best interests. R.C. 2151.414 (B). With respect to the first requirement, R.C. 2151.414 (E) sets forth a list of 16 predicate findings. One of those findings must be established prior to a judicial conclusion that a child cannot or should not be placed with the child's parent. R.C. 2151.414 (E). If a court determines that one of the predicate findings exist, then the court must enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with either of his or her parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1).

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence of a subsection (E) condition as to each parent and of the child's best interest before a juvenile court may terminate parental rights and award permanent custody to a children services agency.

In Re Andrew S., Unpublished Decision (12-21-2007) · filed 2007-12-21(B)(1), (D), and (E)

In granting a motion for permanent custody, the trial court must find that one or more of the conditions listed in R.C. 2151.414 (E) exist as to each of the child's parents. If, after considering all relevant evidence, the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that one or more of the conditions exists, the court shall enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1). Further, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (D), a juvenile court must consider the best interest of the child by examining factors relevant to the case including, but not limited to, those set forth in paragraphs (1)-(5) of subsection (D). Only if these findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence can a juvenile court terminate the rights of a natural parent and award permanent custody of a child to a children services agency. In re William S. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 95 . Clear and convincing evidence is that which is sufficient to produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established. Cross v. Ledford (1954), 161 Ohio St. 469 , paragraph three of the syllabus.

Section 2151.414(E) requires clear and convincing proof of only one listed factor to support a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent.

In Re D.R., Unpublished Decision (1-10-2008) · filed 2008-01-10(E)

The second prong of the test under R.C. 2151.414 (E) sets forth sixteen factors that the trial court must consider in determining "whether a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with the parents[.]" Under this statute, a trial court need only find one of these factors, by clear and convincing evidence, in order to award permanent custody to an authorized agency.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) requires only one listed circumstance and permits a trial court to cite multiple circumstances in the alternative.

In Re N.W., 07ap-590 (1-29-2008) · filed 2008-01-29(B)(1)

Even though R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1) requires the existence of only one of the circumstances in R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1), a trial court may cite more than one factor in the alternative.

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence both that one of the statutory grounds concerning the child's placement exists and that permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In Matter of Robison, 5-07-41 (2-11-2008) · filed 2008-02-11(B)(1), (D), and (E)

Before a juvenile court may terminate parental rights and award permanent custody of a child to a properly moving agency, it must find clear and convincing evidence of both prongs of the permanent custody test: (1) that the child is abandoned, orphaned, has been in the temporary custody of the agency for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, or that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414 (E); and (2) that the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child, based on an analysis under R.C. 2141.414(D).

Section 2151.414(B) requires a two-pronged permanent-custody analysis, and when a child is neither abandoned nor orphaned, subsection (E) requires the court to consider all relevant evidence and find that the child cannot or should not be placed with a parent if clear and convincing evidence establishes any listed factor for that parent.

In Re Krstinovski, 2007ca00311 (4-28-2008) · filed 2008-04-28(B) and (E)

Therefore, R.C. 2151.414 (B) establishes a two-pronged analysis the trial court must apply when ruling on a motion for permanent custody. In practice, the trial court will usually determine whether one of the four circumstances delineated in R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a) through (d) is present before proceeding to a determination regarding the best interest of the child. {¶ 27} 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. ... {¶ 34} Based upon the foregoing and the entire record in this matter, we find the trial court's finding the children could not or should not be placed with Mother and Father within a reasonable time as well as its finding it was in the best interest of the children to grant permanent custody to the Department is supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one condition in subsection (E) as to each parent before a court may find that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

In Re Makayla L., L-07-1265 (5-2-2008) · filed 2008-05-02(B)(1)

In granting a motion for permanent custody, the trial court must find that one or more of the conditions listed in R.C. 2151.414 (E) exist as to each of the child's parents. If, after considering all relevant evidence, the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that one or more of the conditions exists, the court shall enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1).

Section 2151.414(B)(1) requires clear and convincing evidence that one of its four enumerated conditions applies and that terminating parental rights is in the child's best interests.

In Re B.G.W., 08ap-181 (7-24-2008) · filed 2008-07-24(B)(1)

In order to terminate appellant's rights, FCCS was required to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that (1) one of the four factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1) applies, and (2) termination of parental rights is in the child's best interests.

Section 2151.414(E) requires a court, upon clear and convincing evidence that at least one listed condition exists as to each parent, to find that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent.

In Re Damion S., L-07-1313 (8-1-2008) · filed 2008-08-01(E)

In granting a motion for permanent custody, the trial court must find that one or more of the conditions listed in R.C. 2151.414 (E) exist as to each of the child's parents. If, after considering all relevant evidence, the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that one or more of the conditions exists, the court shall enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1).

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence of both a listed statutory condition and the child's best interests, and requires a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with the parents when an applicable division (E) factor is proven as to each parent.

In Re S.W.E., 91057 (8-21-2008) · filed 2008-08-21(B)(1)(a), (E)

In order to terminate parental rights and award permanent custody to CCDCFS, the trial court must find by clear and convincing evidence that (1) one of the conditions listed in R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a)-(d) exists, and (2) permanent custody is in the child's best interests. R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1). ... R.C. 2151.414 (E) requires a court to find that the child cannot or should not be placed with the parents if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that one or more of the listed factors applies to each parent. ... Dr. Fabian's testimony provides clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's determination that D.W.E. had a chronic mental illness that was so severe that it made D.W.E. unable to provide an adequate permanent home for the child at the present time and, as anticipated, within one year from the date of the hearing. This determination, in itself supported the court's finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with her.

When a child has been in agency custody for at least twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) requires a best-interest determination but not a finding that the child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

In Re J.H., Ca 22512 (8-22-2008) · filed 2008-08-22(B)(1)(d)

Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a), the court may grant permanent custody of a child 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 children services agency, and that at least one of the circumstances in R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a)-(d) exists. Notably, if the child has been in the custody of the children services agency for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period, the court need only determine whether permanent custody is in the child's best interest. R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d). Here, it is undisputed that J.H. had been in temporary custody for at least twelve months at the time that MCCS filed its motion for permanent custody of J.H. Therefore, the trial court was not required to make a finding that J.H. could not be placed with Mother within a reasonable time.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) requires both a finding that permanent custody is in the child's best interest under the division (D) factors and a finding that one of the listed circumstances concerning parental placement, abandonment, orphanhood, or agency custody applies.

In Re A.W., Ca2008-03-032 (8-25-2008) · filed 2008-08-25(B)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 (B) requires the juvenile court to apply a two-part test when terminating parental rights and awarding permanent custody to a children services agency. Specifically, the court must find that: 1) the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child, utilizing, in part, the factors of R.C. 2151.414 (D); and, 2) any of the following apply: the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent; the child is abandoned; the child is orphaned; or the child has been in the temporary custody of the agency for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period.

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one subsection (E) condition for each parent and that permanent custody is in the child's best interest after consideration of subsection (D)'s factors.

In Re Steven C. O., Wm-08-010 (10-6-2008) · filed 2008-10-06(B)(1), (D), (E)

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

Section 2151.414 requires only one factor under division (E) to establish that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent, and permanent custody also must be supported by the child’s best interests under division (D).

In Re Savannah J., L-08-1123 (10-7-2008) · filed 2008-10-07(D), (E)(11), (14), (16)

In the present case, the lower court supported its conclusion that Savannah could not or should not be returned to appellant within a reasonable time by finding the existence of the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414 (E)(11), (14) and (16). That is, the court found that appellant has had her parental rights involuntarily terminated with respect to a sibling of Savannah; that appellant was unwilling to provide Savannah with food, clothing, shelter and other basic necessities due to her repeated unemployment and lack of stable housing; and that appellant continued to have contact with Robert J. despite a long history of domestic violence. The court only needed to find the existence of one of the R.C. 2151.414 (E) factors to support its determination. We find that the record does support the court's findings. ... With regard to the best interest prong, the lower court considered all of the relevant factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414 (D). Upon review of the record, we conclude that the trial court's determination that permanent custody is in Savannah's best interest is supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one subsection (E) condition as to each parent and consideration of the subsection (D) best-interest factors before permanent custody may be awarded.

In Matter of Morgan G., F-08-007 (12-12-2008) · filed 2008-12-12(B)(1), (D), and (E)

{¶ 17} In granting a motion for permanent custody, the trial court must find that one or more of the conditions listed in R.C. 2151.414 (E) exist as to each of the child's parents. If, after considering all relevant evidence, the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that one or more of the conditions exists, the court shall enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1). Further, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (D), a juvenile court must consider the best interest of the child by examining factors relevant to the case including, but not limited to, those set forth in paragraphs 1-5 of subsection D. Only if these findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence can a juvenile court terminate the rights of a natural parent and award permanent custody of a child to a children's services agency.

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence of one factor in division (B)(1)(a) through (d) and that permanent custody is in the child's best interest; when division (B)(1)(a) applies, one division (E) factor is enough to support a finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with a parent.

In Re T.F., 91438 (12-18-2008) · filed 2008-12-18(B)(1), (E)

R.C. 2151.414 sets forth a two-prong analysis to be applied by the juvenile court for a determination of whether permanent custody should be granted to an agency. The statute requires the court to find, by clear and convincing evidence, (1) one of the factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a)-(d), and (2) an award of permanent custody is in the best interest of the child. ... The factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414 (E) are analyzed to make a determination of whether a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parents when the trial court finds that R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a) applies. ... However, the juvenile court needs to find only one factor in R.C. 2151.414 (E) applies to support its holding.

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence both that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and that one of the circumstances in (B)(1)(a) through (d) applies; one factor under division (E) is enough to establish that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent.

In Matter of Hollingsworth, 08 Ca 35 (1-21-2009) · filed 2009-01-21(B)(1), (D), (E)

Therefore, R.C. § 2151.414 (B) establishes a two-pronged analysis the trial court must apply when ruling on a motion for permanent custody. In practice, the trial court will usually determine whether one of the four circumstances delineated in R.C. § 2151.414 (B) (1)(a) through (d) is present before proceeding to a determination regarding the best interest of the child. ... 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 permits a court to grant permanent custody only after a hearing at which clear and convincing evidence establishes that permanent custody is in the child's best interests and one of the circumstances in subsection (B) applies.

In Matter of S.D., 08ap-546 (3-10-2009) · filed 2009-03-10(A)(1), (B), and (D)(1)

Under this scheme, before a court may grant a petition for PCC, the court must hold a hearing to determine whether the state has clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the best interests of the child. In re J.W. , ¶ 16; R.C. 2151.414 (A)(1). The "best interests" criteria are codified at R.C. 2151.414 (D)(1). The court must also find that one of the circumstances in R.C. 2151.414 (B) applies. Then the court may grant the PCC motion.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) permits an award of permanent custody only upon clear and convincing evidence of at least one factor in (B)(1)(a) through (d) and that permanent custody serves the child's best interest.

In re K.H. · filed 2010-10-22(B)(1)

A juvenile court may grant permanent custody of a child to a public services agency if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, two statutory prongs: (1) the existence of at least one of the four factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (d) and (2) that the child’s best interest is served by a grant of permanent custody to the children’s services agency.

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and a finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with a parent; any one applicable division (E) factor can support the latter finding.

In re G.S. · filed 2011-05-05(B)(1)(a), (D), and (E)

In considering an award of permanent custody, the court must first determine whether, by clear and convincing evidence, it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody. R.C. 2151.414(D). ... In addition to determining the child’s best interest, the court must make a second determination before granting permanent custody: it must determine whether the child can be placed with a parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parent. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a). The court is required to enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time if any factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(E) apply. ... The existence of any one of the factors can be sufficient grounds for the trial court to determine that the children could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time. In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 2007-Ohio-1104, 862 N.E.2d 816, ¶50.

When a child has not been in agency custody for twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, permanent custody requires a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parents.

In re J.B. · filed 2011-05-27(B)(1)(a)

At the time of the permanent custody hearing, neither J.B., Jr. nor I.B. had been in the temporary custody of FCSCC for twelve or more months out of a consecutive twenty-two month period. Therefore, in order to grant FCSCC’s motion for permanent custody, the juvenile court was required to find that the child “cannot be placed with either of the child’s parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child’s parents.” R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a).

Section 2151.414(B) establishes a two-pronged permanent-custody analysis requiring both a best-interest determination and one of the circumstances listed in subsection (B)(1)(a) through (d).

In re H.T. · filed 2012-03-20(B)

Following the hearing, R.C. 2151.414(B) authorizes the juvenile court to grant permanent custody of the child to the public or private agency if the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody to the agency, and that any of the following apply: (a) the child is not abandoned or orphaned, and the child cannot be placed with either of the child's parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child's parents; (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; or (d) the child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or private child placement agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period ending on or after March 18, 1999. ... Therefore, R.C. 2151.414(B) establishes a two-pronged analysis the trial court must apply when ruling on a motion for permanent custody. In practice, the trial court will usually determine whether one of the four circumstances delineated in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (d) is present before proceeding to a determination regarding the best interest of the child. ... Based upon the foregoing reasons and the entire record in this matter, we find the trial court’s decision to grant permanent custody to CSB was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Further, the trial court’s decision to terminate Mother’s parental rights was supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) permits a court to grant permanent custody to a children’s services agency only upon clear and convincing evidence that a statutory condition applies and that permanent custody is in the child’s best interest.

In re S.S. · filed 2011-11-04(B)(1)

Before the court may exercise this power, though, the statute requires that it determine, by clear and convincing evidence, that at least one of the conditions enumerated in the statute applies and that the court determine, again, by clear and convincing evidence, that granting permanent custody to the agency is in the child’s best interest.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(a) permits a court to grant permanent custody only upon clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child’s best interest and that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent.

In re K.N. · filed 2012-05-18(B)(1)(a)

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

A trial court may grant permanent custody to an agency only upon clear and convincing evidence that one of the conditions in subsection (B)(1)(a) through (d) applies and that permanent custody is in the child’s best interest.

In re R.M. · filed 2012-09-20(B)(1)

In accordance with R.C. 2151.414, a trial court may grant permanent custody of a child to an agency if the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that one of the factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)-(d) applies and that an award of permanent custody is in the child’s best interest.

Section 2151.414 requires a court granting permanent custody to find both that one of the statutory threshold conditions exists and that permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In re W.R. · filed 2013-02-13(B)(1), (D)(1)

In order to grant a request for permanent custody, the trial court is required to engage in a two-part analysis. First, as required by R.C. §2151.414, it must find that one of the factors below exists: ... The trial court is then required to engage in an assessment of whether a grant of permanent custody is in the best interest of the child utilizing factors set forth in R. C. §2151.414(D) as follows: ... Based on the foregoing, this Court finds there was competent, credible evidence to support the trial court’s decision to terminate the parental rights of the parents and place these children in the permanent custody of the agency and the same was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

A juvenile court may terminate parental rights and award permanent custody to an agency only upon clear and convincing evidence satisfying both prongs of the permanent-custody test: a qualifying statutory circumstance and the child's best interests.

In re I.A. · filed 2013-02-06(B)(1), (D), and (E)

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

Section 2151.414(B) permits permanent custody only upon clear and convincing evidence that custody is in the child's best interest and that one of four statutory circumstances applies.

In re N.G. · filed 2013-06-26(B)

Following the hearing, R.C. §2151.414(B) authorizes the juvenile court to grant permanent custody of the child to the public or private agency if the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody to the agency, and that any of the following apply: (a) the child is not abandoned or orphaned, and the child cannot be placed with either of the child's parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child's parents; (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; or (d) the child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or private child placement agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period ending on or after March 18, 1999.

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence both that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and that one of the conditions in subsection (B)(1) applies.

In re M.R. · filed 2013-10-09(B)(1)

Before a juvenile court may terminate parental rights, it must apply a two-pronged analysis. First, the court must find that it is in the child’s best interest to be placed in the permanent custody of the moving agency. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) and (D). The second prong of the analysis requires the juvenile court to find one of four conditions listed in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1). Both prongs must be supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) requires a best-interest finding and one listed factor; a finding that the child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time is required only under division (B)(1)(a).

In Re Morgan, Unpublished Decision (8-2-2004) · filed 2004-08-02(B)(1)

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

Section 2151.414 does not require a juvenile court to discuss each applicable factor individually if the record shows it considered the factors and supports its decision.

In re J.B. · filed 2012-07-05(D), (E)

This court has previously recognized that the statute does not require the court to specifically discuss each factor it found applicable before making its determination that the child cannot be placed with either parent or that permanent custody is in that child’s best interest. ... As long as the record affirmatively reflects that the trial court considered the factors and the record supports the trial court’s decision, we will find no reversible error.

Under § 2151.414(E)(1), a court must find that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent when, despite reasonable and diligent agency efforts, the parent has continuously and repeatedly failed for six months or more to substantially remedy the conditions that led to the child’s removal.

In Re Shanequa H. · filed 1996-02-02(E)(1)

R.C. 2151.414(E) directs a court that is considering whether a child’s reunification with the child’s parent is possible to hold a hearing on the issue and consider all relevant evidence there presented. ... Once the court has properly determined that one of these eight conditions exist, it is mandated to enter a finding that the child ‘cannot be placed with either of his parents within a reasonable time and should not be placed with his parents.’ ... As discussed above, proof of any of these statutory subsections mandates a determination that the children cannot or should not be placed with their parents. ... The requirements of R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) have been satisfied.

Section 2151.414 permits permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence establishes that it is in the child's best interest and the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, including because a parent is incarcerated for an offense against the child or will be unavailable to care for the child for at least eighteen months.

Matter of Burris, Unpublished Decision (8-4-1997) · filed 1997-08-04(B)(1), (D), and (E)(5)-(6)

R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1) provides in part that a juvenile court may grant permanent custody of a child to a children services agency if the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child's best interest, and the child cannot or should not be placed with either of his parents within a reasonable time. ... Of particular importance here are R.C. 2151.414 (E)(5) and (6), which provide: (5) The parent is incarcerated for an offense committed against the child or a sibling of the child; (6) The parent is incarcerated at the time of the filing of the motion for permanent custody or the dispositional hearing of the child and will not be available to care for the child for at least eighteen months after the filing of the motion for permanent custody or the dispositional hearing[.] ... When the juvenile court held its permanent custody hearing, appellant was incarcerated for offenses against the children. See R.C. 2151.414 (E)- (5). The evidence also clearly indicates that Mark Burris was incarcerated and would not be available to care for the children within a reasonable time. See R.C. 2151.414 (E)(6). ... The record reveals sufficient evidence from which the trial court could have found by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the children's best interest. This court is satisfied that the juvenile court's decision to grant permanent custody of the children to the CCDHS was proper.

Section 2151.414 requires permanent-custody hearings to conform to the Juvenile Rules.

In Re Vickers Children · filed 1983-12-30(A)

Accordingly, hearings for permanent custody under R.C. 2151.414 must conform to the Juvenile Rules.

Section 2151.414 permits permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence shows that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent, including when statutory parental-failure, lack-of-commitment, or repeated-incarceration conditions exist.

In Re Grant · filed 1991-07-17(B)(1), (E)(1), (E)(4), and (E)(7)

In support of a finding under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), evidence was presented that Margaret failed to comply with requirements set out in the case plan. Over a period of nine months, Margaret engaged in illegal activities, abused alcohol, missed twelve of fourteen scheduled visits with her children, served three terms of incarceration, exhibited poor impulse control and a violent temper and failed to establish a permanent residence. ... In support of a finding under R.C. 2151.414(E)(4) and (7), respectively, evidence was adduced that Margaret visited her children only two out of fourteen scheduled periods between March 1990 and December 1990, and that Margaret had been incarcerated numerous times over the last eight years. ... We conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the judgment, and that the trial court did not err as a matter of law.

Section 2151.414 permits permanent custody where failure to remedy removal conditions, lack of parental commitment, and incarceration preventing provision of basic necessities establish the statutory placement grounds.

In Re T.C. · filed 2000-12-13(E)(1), (E)(4), (E)(14)

Finally, the record discloses clear and convincing evidence to support the granting of permanent custody to the ACCSB. Specifically, Deanna had continuously failed to remedy the conditions causing T.C. to be placed outside the home despite the diligent efforts of the ACCSB to reunite T.C. with Deanna; both Deanna and Lee demonstrated a lack of commitment toward the child by failing ... to regularly support, visit, or communicate with the child when able to do so; both Deanna and Lee are currently incarcerated; and, finally, Deanna and Lee, being incarcerated, are unable to provide food, clothing, shelter, and other basic necessities for the child or to prevent the child from suffering physical, emotional, or sexual abuse or physical, emotional, or mental neglect.

A parent's incarceration for child endangering, inability to contact the victim child after release, and failure to complete the reunification plan can support findings of failure to remedy and abandonment under section 2151.414(E).

In the Matter of Campbell, Unpublished Decision (7-15-2002) · filed 2002-07-15(E)(1), (E)(5), (E)(6), (E)(10)

We find these findings to be supported by the record and we find the conclusion that appellant has effectively abandoned her children to be correct. It is clear from the record that although appellant was expected to be released from incarceration three months after the hearing, she would not be permitted to visit or have contact with Naudia.

Section 2151.414(E)(4) sets no numerical visitation threshold for lack of parental commitment; courts must decide from the particular facts whether the parent supported, visited, or communicated with the child when able.

In the Matter of Willis, Unpublished Decision (9-20-2002) · filed 2002-09-20(E)(4)

The Ohio General Assembly did not establish a set number of parental visits that would prove that a parent was committed to their child. Nor do we intend to do so today. Rather, we focus on the particular facts of this case and the language of the statute directing the court to determine whether a parent has supported, visited, or communicate with their child when able to do so . ... We are unable to conclude that within this short period of time an unclear amount of missed visits are enough to demonstrate Appellant's lack of commitment to Asia, especially in light of the overwhelming testimony by Agency personnel that Appellant undeniably loved his daughter and was concerned with her well being.

A parent's refusal to address substance abuse and parenting deficits can demonstrate lack of commitment to the child under section 2151.414(E)(4).

In Re Harris, Unpublished Decision (2-14-2003) · filed 2003-02-14(E)(4)

Further, the magistrate found that Harris had demonstrated a lack of commitment to his children by his refusal to address his substance-abuse problems and the deficits in his parenting skills. R.C. 2151.414 (E)(4). Again, there is competent evidence in the record to support this finding.

Ongoing criminal problems, failure to maintain stable housing, and failure to provide financial support may clearly and convincingly establish grounds for permanent custody under subsection (E).

In Re Ashley, Unpublished Decision (11-15-2002) · filed 2002-11-15(E)(4)

{¶ 74} Upon review of the evidence presented at the hearing on the motion for permanent custody, we find that the evidence clearly and convincingly established that an award of permanent custody to the agency was proper. Most significantly, appellant's on-going criminal legal problems (some involving dishonesty), her failure to provide stable housing, and her failure to financially support her children leads us to the conclusion that appellee has established by clear and convincing evidence that the agency should be awarded permanent custody of Ashley.

A parent's failure to visit regularly when able and other actions showing unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home support a lack-of-commitment finding under subsection (E)(4).

In the Matter of Crager, Unpublished Decision (10-15-2003) · filed 2003-10-15(E)(4)

In conclusion, we find that the record contained some competent, credible evidence to support the trial court's finding that Father has demonstrated a lack of commitment toward Leahanna by failing to regularly visit when able to do so, and by other actions showing an unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home for the child.

Section 2151.414(E)(4)'s lack-of-commitment factor may be satisfied when a parent who is able to work fails to maintain employment to provide for the children.

In Re Robinson, Unpublished Decision (10-17-2003) · filed 2003-10-17(E)(4)

In its September 23, 2002, decision and entry, the trial court determined that despite her ability to work, Ms. Dover had failed to maintain employment to provide for her children. Ms. Dover has not disputed this finding, which alone demonstrates her lack of commitment and unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home for her children.

When the court finds that a parent failed to remedy the conditions causing foster placement or demonstrated a lack of commitment, subsection (E) requires a finding that the child cannot or should not be returned within a reasonable time, after which the court determines the child’s best interest.

In re L.J. · filed 2009-10-26(E)(1), (E)(4)

Having made this finding, the trial court is required to make a finding that the children either cannot or should not be returned to their parents within a reasonable time. R.C. 2151.414(E). Once that finding is made, the trial court only needs to determine if granting permanent custody to LCCSB would be in L.J.’s best interest.

Failure to remedy removal problems and failure to regularly support, visit, or communicate with children can together establish that the children cannot or should not be placed with the parent under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) and (4).

In re S.B. · filed 2014-10-30(E)(1), (E)(4)

First, the record fully supports the juvenile court’s initial determination that the children could not or should not be placed in the custody of either parent pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a). The record shows that following placement of the children outside the home and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents, the parents failed to remedy the problems and demonstrated a lack of commitment towards the children by failing to regularly support, visit, or communicate with the children when able to do so. See R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) and (4).

Sections 2151.414(E)(1) and (E)(4) support a reasonable-time placement finding when parents fail to remedy the removal conditions and demonstrate a lack of commitment to the children.

In re P.B. · filed 2017-09-20(E)(1), (E)(4)

The trial court found that CSB satisfied the first prong of the test because the children could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with them because the parents had failed to substantially remedy the conditions that caused the children to be removed from Mother’s custody and continued to be placed outside the home and the parents had demonstrated a lack of commitment to the children. See R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) and (E)(4). Both of those findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Sections 2151.414(E)(1), (E)(3), (E)(4), and (E)(14) support a reasonable-time placement finding when a parent repeatedly fails to remedy removal conditions, protect the children, maintain commitment, and provide necessities.

In re Au.E. · filed 2018-02-09(E)(1), (E)(3), (E)(4), (E)(14)

The trial court further held that R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), (3), (4) and (14) also apply to the instant case given that despite ample evidence of reasonable efforts by LCCS, appellant had continuously failed to substantially remedy the conditions which cause the removal of the children, had caused or allowed the children to suffer neglect and abuse, had demonstrated a lack of commitment and a failure to provide regular support and visitation, and was not providing basic necessities to the children or preventing them from suffering harm. ... We have carefully reviewed and considered the record of evidence. We find that the record is replete with compelling evidence demonstrating that, although the children had not been abandoned or orphaned, they could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time and should not be placed with them.

A parent's persistent disbelief or minimization of a child's abuse allegations may support findings that the parent failed to remedy removal conditions, lacks commitment to an adequate home, and is unwilling to prevent further abuse.

In re A.M. · filed 2018-02-15(E)(1), (E)(4), (E)(14)

As other many other courts have recognized, a parent’s doubts regarding a child’s abuse allegations raise serious questions about that parent’s protective capacities, commitment to providing for the child’s emotional needs, and may support findings under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), (4), and (14). Z.P.; D.F.; R.S.; A.R.; D.H.; Misty B. See also In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538, 2008-Ohio-4825, 895 N.E.2d 809, ¶ 47 (concluding that mother’s decision to remain living with pedophile-husband supported finding under R.C. 2151.414(E)(14) that she is unwilling to prevent children from suffering physical, emotional, or sexual abuse).

Under § 2151.414(B), a court must separately determine parental suitability and whether the child can or should be placed with a parent within a reasonable time; under (E), one listed condition mandates a finding against placement, but the absence of one does not mandate placement.

In Re Higby · filed 1992-06-24(B), (E)

We do not agree with Douglas’s construction of the statute. The clear import of this section is that it is mandatory on the court to decide that a child cannot be placed with his parent when any one of the eight conditions exist as to that parent. The intent of the legislature was to eliminate any discretion on the part of the court when one of these conditions exist. But this in no way implies that in the absence of such conditions, the court must find that the child can be placed with the parent. R.C. 2151.414(E) specifically states that the court, in determining the status of the parent, “shall consider all relevant evidence.” Acceptance of Douglas’s position would render this directive superfluous. Such a construction would violate our duty to “accord meaning to each word of a legislative enactment if it is reasonably possible so to do.”

A parent who had substantially remedied the conditions causing removal and remained psychologically stable could not be found unable to receive the children within a reasonable time under subsections (E)(1) and (2).

In Re Williams, Unpublished Decision (7-3-2003) · filed 2003-07-03(E)(1)-(2)

Given that appellant had substantially remedied the conditions within her power that led to the removal of the children in October, 2001 and that appellant had been psychologically stable since before their removal and continued to be so, the juvenile court erred in finding that the children could not be placed with their mother within a reasonable time.

Competent, credible evidence that a mother maintained contact with her children supported a finding under subsection (E) that they could or should be placed with her within a reasonable time.

In Re N.B., Unpublished Decision (7-10-2003) · filed 2003-07-10(E)

This same evidence sufficiently supports the trial court's conclusion, furthermore, that the children could or should be placed with mother within a reasonable time pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (E).

Under § 2151.414(E), a parent's abandonment, lack of commitment, unstable housing and employment, and lack of bonding can support a finding that placement with the parent cannot occur within a reasonable time.

In Re Francisco, Unpublished Decision (11-2-2006) · filed 2006-11-02(E)

Subsection (E) lists factors the trial court is to consider in making its decision and states in pertinent part: ... Because of appellant's lack of involvement which was tantamount to abandonment, the lack of stable housing and employment and the lack of any paternal bonding, all the social workers and the guardian at litem opined placement with appellant could not be effectuated within a reasonable time. ... Upon review, we find ample clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the trial court's decision to grant appellee permanent custody of the children.

In deciding whether a parent can care for a child within a reasonable time, a court may consider the parent's lack of employment and a driver's license, child-endangering convictions, and failure to demonstrate necessary parenting skills despite completing services.

In re K.C. · filed 2014-08-07(E)

The court also appropriately considered the father's failure to obtain a driver's license and to obtain employment, his convictions for child endangering and his failure to display necessary parenting skills despite parenting classes and family therapy in determining whether the father will be able to parent K.C. within a reasonable time.

Before granting permanent custody under Section 2151.414(B)(1)(a), the court must find that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent by establishing at least one Section 2151.414(E) factor with clear and convincing evidence.

In re C.F. · filed 2015-11-13(B)(1)(a)

R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) provides that a court may not grant a children’s services agency permanent custody of a child without first determining that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, or should not be placed with either parent. In making such a determination the court must find that at least one of the factors listed in R.C. 2151.414(E) has been established by clear and convincing evidence.

A parent may be found unable to receive a child within a reasonable time when clear and convincing evidence supports one or more Section 2151.414(E) factors.

In re K.M. · filed 2017-02-03(E)

To support a finding that a child cannot be placed within a reasonable time with either of his or her parents, the factors listed under R.C. 2151.414(E) must be considered.

Subsection (E) supplies the factors a trial court must consider when deciding whether a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

In re K.P. · filed 2019-12-02(E)

Revised Code §2151.414(E) sets forth the factors a trial court must consider in determining whether a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

Subsection (E) supplies the factors a trial court must consider when deciding whether a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

In re J.P. · filed 2019-12-02(E)

Revised Code §2151.414(E) sets forth the factors a trial court must consider in determining whether a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

Subsection (E) supplies the factors a trial court must consider when deciding whether a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

In re D.P. · filed 2019-12-02(E)

Revised Code §2151.414(E) sets forth the factors a trial court must consider in determining whether a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

A trial court must find that a child cannot or should not be placed with the parents when clear and convincing evidence establishes one or more subsection (E)(1) through (16) factors as to each parent.

In re L.F. · filed 2020-03-05(E)

The trial court is required to enter such a finding if it determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that one or more of the factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) through (16) exist with respect to each of the child's parents.

A trial court must enter a cannot-or-should-not-be-placed finding when clear and convincing evidence establishes one or more subsection (E)(1) through (16) factors for each parent.

In re J.M. · filed 2020-04-09(E)

The trial court is required to enter such a finding if it determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that one or more of the factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) through (16) exist with respect to each of the child's parents.

A trial court must enter a cannot-or-should-not-be-placed finding when clear and convincing evidence establishes one or more subsection (E)(1) through (16) factors for each parent.

In re T.H. · filed 2020-06-30(E)

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.

Subsection (E) requires the trial court to consider all relevant evidence when deciding whether a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent.

In re C.R. · filed 2020-08-12(E)

Under R.C. 2151.414(E), the trial court must consider all relevant evidence before making this determination.

When subsection (B)(1)(a) applies, the court must consider both best interest and whether a subsection (E) factor prevents placement with either parent within a reasonable time.

In re W.E. · filed 2021-03-31(B)(1)(a), (E)

If—as here—the court finds that R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) applies, it must consider both whether granting permanent custody to the agency is in the child’s best interest and whether any of the factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(E) are present which would indicate that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent.

A severe physical disability may prevent an adequate permanent home when the parent has spent most of the case in medical institutions, remains hospitalized, lacks stable housing, and has no known release date.

In re A.P. · filed 2018-09-19(E)(2)

Mother has a physical disability that is so severe that it makes her unable to provide an adequate permanent home at the present time or as anticipated, within one year. Mother has resided in a hospital, rehabilitation center, or nursing home throughout the life of this case. Mother is currently in the hospital. It is unknown when Mother will be released. She does not have stable, independent housing for the children. ... We do not find the juvenile court clearly lost its way to create such a manifest miscarriage of justice as to require reversal of the judgment regarding the permanent custody of A.P. and J.P.

Severe, chronic intellectual impairments that indefinitely limit self-care, self-direction, economic proficiency, and cognition may support permanent custody even when the parent cooperates with services and has a loving relationship with the children.

In re J.P. · filed 2018-09-20(E)(2)

The evidence in the case at hand is consistent that Mother was cooperative with her service providers and that she tried to utilize many resources. This case presents a difficult scenario, because the “problems” that caused the Children to be removed from Mother’s care are Mother’s severe and chronic intellectual impairments, specifically in the major life activity areas of self-care, self-direction, economic proficiency, and learning/cognition. According to CCBDD’s report, Mother’s “diagnosed disability is likely to continue indefinitely.” ... We are mindful that child abuse and substance abuse are not part of this case, Mother has no criminal history, she has a loving relationship with the Children, and she has had no other children removed from her care. Nonetheless, we find that the juvenile court’s decision committing the Children to the permanent custody of CCDCFS is supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record.

Section 2151.414(E)(2) permits a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent when the parent's chronic mental illness is so severe that it prevents an adequate permanent home, and evidence of the condition before and after the child's birth may be relevant.

Matter of Mae S., Unpublished Decision (6-26-1998) · filed 1998-06-26(E)(2)

Moreover, we find ample evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that appellant suffers from a chronic mental illness that interferes with her judgment as a parent. Although much of the testimony related to the manifestations of appellant's illness prior to Mae's birth, R.C. 2151.414 (E)(2) refers to "chronic mental illness." Accordingly, in our view, evidence of appellant's mental condition both before and after Mae's birth was relevant and necessary to the court's duty under R.C. 2151.414 (E).

Section 2151.414(E)(2) permits a finding that a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time when the parent's severe chronic mental illness makes the parent unable to provide an adequate permanent home at present and within one year.

In Re Bowers, Unpublished Decision (1-31-2000) · filed 2000-01-31(E)(2)

We also believe that substantial competent and credible evidence exists to demonstrate that Timothy cannot be placed with his mother within a reasonable period of time. Several witnesses testified that appellant suffers from a chronic mental illness and that the length of her recovery cannot be predicted. Moreover, although we note that appellant claims that she will eventually recover, appellant is unable to predict when her recovery will occur. Her recovery could be in six months or six years. Substantial evidence exists that it is not safe to return Timothy to his mother's home either at the present time or within the upcoming year. Appellant testified that during 1998, she had several panic attacks and had suicidal ideations. Thus, we believe that the existence of appellant's severe mental illness presented the trial court with ample cause to conclude that Timothy cannot be placed with his mother within a reasonable period of time. See R.C. 2151.414 (E) (2); Hurlow , supra ; Butcher , supra .

Section 2151.414 permits permanent custody to be granted 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, including when a parent's severe chronic mental illness prevents an adequate permanent home.

In Re Alexander H., Unpublished Decision (8-11-2000) · filed 2000-08-11(B)(1), (E)(1), and (E)(2)

A juvenile court may grant a motion for permanent custody of a child to a public services agency if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody to that agency and (2) the child, not abandoned or orphaned, cannot be placed with either of his parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with his parents. R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1). ... To enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with his parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with his parents, the court need find, by clear and convincing evidence, that only one of the twelve factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414 (E) exists. ... In this case, the record contains overwhelming evidence that appellant suffers from severe and chronic mental illness and has not been able to gain any insight into her condition. ... While we recognize appellant's understandable desire to have her baby returned, the evidence demonstrates that, due to her chronic mental illness, appellant is simply unable to care for herself or her child. Consequently, she has also failed to remedy the conditions for which the child was removed. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court's decision to grant permanent custody of Alexander to LCCS was supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 2151.414(E)(2) supports permanent custody where a parent’s mental and emotional disorders prevent an adequate home and consistent care for children with special needs, notwithstanding shortcomings in agency reunification assistance.

In Re Cruz, Unpublished Decision (11-30-2000) · filed 2000-11-30(E)(2)

Therefore, notwithstanding the shortcomings on the part of the CFS, there is clear and convincing evidence to justify the grant of permanent custody. The appellant suffers from emotional and mental disorders which greatly affect her ability to provide an adequate living environment for her children. Further, the children suffer from behavioral and mental afflictions which require consistent medical attention and therapy which the appellant cannot reasonably provide in light of her own inability to seek medical attention.

A parent's renewed drug use, confirmed by admissions and avoidance of random screening, may support the chronic-drug-problem ground preventing placement under section 2151.414(E).

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

The record also supports the trial court's finding that appellant had a chronic drug problem that would prevent the children from being placed with appellant. The record is clear that, contrary to appellant's testimony, appellant was using drugs again, one of the reasons the children were originally removed from appellant's care. Parker testified that appellant told her that she was using again and that appellant had not made herself available for random drug screening, presumably because she was, in fact, using drugs again.

Parental cognitive limitations that prevent applying parenting instruction to a child’s substantial medical needs can support permanent custody under Section 2151.414(E)(2).

In Re Zickefoose, Unpublished Decision (3-23-2001) · filed 2001-03-23(E)(2)

Appellants' cognitive limitations make them unable to apply principles they learn in parenting class to understand the importance of the medical procedures required to care for Brandon. ... Based upon the foregoing and the entire record in this matter, we find the trial court's decision to grant permanent custody of Brandon, to the Agency, is supported by the manifest weight of clear and convincing evidence.

Severe untreated mental illness may independently support the parental-placement finding under section 2151.414(E)(2), regardless of a parent's challenge to proof of abuse or neglect.

In Re Sowell, Unpublished Decision (6-7-2001) · filed 2001-06-07(E)(2)

This argument fails not only because the county proved by clear and convincing evidence that the father abused the child prior to the child's removal from the home, but also because the father's untreated mental illness by itself provides clear and convincing evidence to support the award of permanent custody to the county.

Section 2151.414(E)(2) does not support permanent custody based on alcohol abuse without clear and convincing evidence that the parent could not provide a home within one year with appropriate treatment.

In Re: Rogers, Unpublished Decision (6-29-2001) · filed 2001-06-29(E)(2)

Given the testimony presented and the testimony not presented, the evidence does not support the trial court's decision that Rogers' alcohol abuse is so severe that she could not, with appropriate treatment, provide a home for the children within a year. Without clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's judgment, the decision is an abuse of discretion.

Involuntary sobriety during incarceration does not prevent findings under sections 2151.414(E)(1) and (E)(2) when the parent repeatedly relapsed after treatment and had not begun overcoming a chronic addiction.

In Re Schafer, Unpublished Decision (6-5-2002) · filed 2002-06-05(E)(1), (E)(2)

Schafer had a long history of drug abuse and, despite several drug treatment programs in the past, she had been unable to break her cycle of continual relapse. She had remained involuntarily sober during her prior incarceration, but relapsed into drug use shortly after her release from prison. The trial court had ample evidence before it from which it concluded that Schafer failed to remedy the conditions causing Justin to be placed outside the home and that, due to her chronic drug addiction, she would not be able to provide an adequate home for Justin at that time or within the following year. Therefore, because both R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) and 2151.414(E)(2) were satisfied, the trial court did not err in concluding that Justin could not be placed with Schafer within a reasonable time or should not be placed with her.

Six months of sobriety does not preclude findings under section 2151.414(E) when a parent's long drug history and repeated failed treatment show little likelihood of lasting recovery or adequate care.

In Re M.H., Unpublished Decision (6-13-2002) · filed 2002-06-13(E)(1), (E)(2)

And even though mother had been drug-free for the six months preceding trial, her erratic history of drug-use and her unsuccessful attempts at so many other drug treatment programs does not leave this court convinced of mother's ability to remedy her drug dependency, on a long-term basis. (Tr. at 57-58, 87, 99-100.) At the time of trial, mother was on probation for an offense which she admits was related to her drug use. (Tr. at 103.) Mother was not employed at the time of trial and had no income, facts evidencing instability. (Tr. at 23, 25, 56-57, 78.) When asked why she wanted M.H. back, mother stated she wanted to love her, to give her a better life, and to let her know she is worthy. This court is not persuaded that mother can accomplish these ends in light of evidence that mother has done little to make a better life for herself, let alone her daughter. On the record before us, there was clear and convincing evidence indicating there was little likelihood mother could provide the care M.H. requires.

Under § 2151.414(E)(2), chronic intellectual and personality disorders support an inability-to-place finding when they prevent the parent from independently meeting a medically fragile child's needs and are not likely to improve with treatment.

In the Matter of Bair, Unpublished Decision (9-10-2002) · filed 2002-09-10(E)(2), (E)(11), (E)(16)

The evidence adduced at the hearing established mother has an IQ of 68, indicating mild mental retardation. Although she is minimally self supporting, mother requires supervision, guidance, and assistance, especially with stressful situations. Her low mental functioning negatively impacts her ability to parent. Additionally, mother suffers from a passive aggressive personality disorder, which features a pervasive pattern of negativistic attitudes and passive resistence to demands of adequate performances. Both diagnoses of mild mental retardation and passive aggressive personality disorder are chronic and pervasive, and not conducive to change even with treatment. ... Furthermore, Tasha has a seizure disorder and symptoms of cerebral palsy, and mother's ability to properly meet the child's special needs is limited.

Section 2151.414(E)(2)'s one-year inability-to-provide standard can be met despite case-plan compliance when chronic mental and cognitive limitations show little improvement after services and pose a high risk even with long-term in-home support.

In the Matter of Shirkey, Unpublished Decision (9-30-2002) · filed 2002-09-30(E)(2)

Dr. Lee concluded his evaluation by stating that the prognosis for a reunification between Jesse and his parents was poor. Dr. Lee opined that there was a high risk to Jesse in his parents' home, even with long-term supportive and home-based services. Dr. Lee had concerns about the ability of the parents to provide an adequate permanent home for Jesse, even assuming that their mental health issues could be and had been successfully controlled. ... The record indicates that the Shirkeys had not shown marked improvement despite intervention from mental health professionals and home-based services arranged by WCCSB. Competent and credible evidence existed for the trial court to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that appellant could not provide an adequate permanent home for Jesse within one year after the permanent custody hearing.

Section 2151.414(E)(2)'s one-year horizon may be satisfied when a chronically mentally ill parent remains in a year-long treatment program and the parent's psychiatrist is unsure the parent can care for a child with special needs.

In Re Gordon:, Unpublished Decision (9-20-2002) · filed 2002-09-20(E)(2)

A careful review of the record in this case demonstrates that the court did have clear and convincing evidence before it to determine that Pamela could not be placed with her mother within one year. Specifically, a report from Shelton's psychiatrist admitted into evidence, stated that the psychiatrist was not certain that Shelton could care for a child with special needs but that she was demonstrating that she could now care for herself. Shelton testified that in April 2001, she entered into a partial hospitalization mental health program that was to last for one year, or approximately six months following the hearing.

A parent's sufficiently severe mental retardation and inability to provide an adequate permanent home can support permanent custody under subsection (E)(2).

In the Matter of Fazio, Unpublished Decision (10-11-2002) · filed 2002-10-11(E)(2)

{¶ 15} R.C. 2151.414 (E) sets out the factors relevant to determining permanent custody. ... {¶ 17} "(2) Chronic mental illness, chronic emotional illness, mental retardation, physical disability, or chemical dependency of the parent that is so severe that it makes the parent unable to provide an adequate permanent home for the child at the present time and, as anticipated, within one year after the court holds the hearing pursuant to division (A) of this section or for the purposes of division (A)(4) of section 2151.353 of the Revised Code; ... {¶ 27} Upon review, we find clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's decision. The trial court did not err in granting permanent custody of the child to appellee.

A parent's failure to complete the case plan and unresolved mental illness and chemical dependency can support a finding under subsections (E)(1) and (E)(2) that the child cannot or should not be returned within a reasonable time.

In Re Dewalt, Unpublished Decision (12-9-2002) · filed 2002-12-09(E)(1), (E)(2)

{¶ 10} ... We have reviewed the record in this matter and conclude the trial court's finding that appellant's child cannot be returned to her within a reasonable period of time or should not be returned to her is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The record contains ample evidence indicating appellant failed to complete her case plan. The record also indicates appellant suffers from mental illness and chemical dependency which she has failed to address through her case plan.

A reasonable-time placement finding may be supported by a parent's failure to complete the case plan, untreated mental illness causing dangerous behavior, unstable housing, terminated visitation for violence, and repeated involuntary psychiatric commitments.

Hatfield Children, Unpublished Decision (5-27-2003) · filed 2003-05-27(E)(1), (E)(2), (E)(4), (E)(14), (E)(16)

Mother failed to undergo a psychological evaluation. Although the case plan required mother to find stable housing, mother had lived at five different locations during the pendency of the case. Mother's visits with Kaitlyn and Kelsey were terminated due to mother's violent behavior. Additionally, mother had been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital on at least two occasions. ... In light of the foregoing and based upon the entire record in this matter, we find the trial court's findings the children could not and should not be placed with mother within a reasonable time, and it was in the best interests of the children to grant permanent custody to the agency were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

When the reasonable-time placement finding rests on failure to remedy under division (E)(1) and a prior involuntary termination under division (E)(11), rather than severe mental illness under division (E)(2), due process does not require appointment of a psychiatric expert whose evaluation could not affect those grounds.

In Re B. G. Minors, Unpublished Decision (6-19-2003) · filed 2003-06-19(E)(1), (E)(2), (E)(11)

Unlike in Brown and Shaeffer , the court's award of permanent custody in the instant case and the predicate "cannot or should not be placed" findings were not based on the existence of the R.C. 2151.414 (E)(2) factor, that is, that the mother suffered chronic mental illness or chronic emotional illness. Rather, the court made the "cannot or should not be placed" determination by finding the existence of two other statutory factors: (1)that she had failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the children to be placed outside the home, 6 and, (2) that she has had parental rights involuntarily terminated with respect to a sibling of the children. ... Because L.A.'s failure to remedy the conditions causing the children's removal and a termination of her parental rights regarding her other children formed the bases of the court's permanent custody decision, we conclude due process does not mandate the court to appoint a psychiatric expert to assist her in her defense of the instant permanent custody matter.

Subsection (E)(2) supports a finding that a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time when the parent's chronic mental illness prevents the parent from providing an adequate permanent home now and for at least one year.

Campbell v. Richland County Ch. Svcs., Unpublished Decision (8-20-2003) · filed 2003-08-20(E)(2)

In this case, the trial court found that through no fault of appellant, appellant suffers from a chronic mental illness that is so severe that it makes her unable to provide an adequate permanent home for the child at the present time and, as anticipated, within one year of the hearing date. See R.C. 2151.414 (E)(2). ... Upon review, we find that the trial court's findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Section 2151.414(E)(2) requires proof that a parent's mental condition is so severe that it prevents the parent from providing an adequate permanent home.

In the Matter of Jordan, Unpublished Decision (11-14-2003) · filed 2003-11-14(E)(2)

To prove this factor, the record has to show the parent suffers from a chronic mental illness or mental retardation "so severe that it makes the parent unable to provide an adequate permanent home for the child." R.C. 2151.414 (E)(2).

A parent's physical limitations alone do not establish inability to provide an adequate permanent home, but chronic conditions and disabilities that prevent consistent physical care and appropriate understanding of and interaction with the child support a finding under subsection (E)(2).

In Re D. H., 23954 (4-2-2008) · filed 2008-04-02(E)(2)

In response to the trial court determination pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (E)(2) that Mother's disabilities prevented her from providing an adequate permanent home for the child, Mother argues that her disabilities are not so severe that she is unable to care for her child. ... While Mother's physical limitations present challenges, those matters alone will not necessarily be determinative of parenting ability. The record before this Court, however, demonstrates that Mother's chronic conditions and disabilities have impacted her fundamental ability to parent her child. ... The trial court determined that Mother was not able to provide D.H. with adequate and permanent care within the home, and this conclusion is clearly and convincingly supported by the evidence before the court. Not only is Mother unable to provide the consistent physical care that the child requires, but she also lacks the ability to understand the child's needs and interact appropriately with him. Accordingly, Mother's challenge of the finding on the first prong of the permanent custody test must fail.

Section 2151.414(E)(2) permits a finding that a parent cannot provide an adequate permanent home when chronic mental illness creates an unacceptably high risk of harm, while subsection (E)(14) applies when the other parent cannot protect the children from that risk.

In re K.H. · filed 2008-09-30(E)(2), (E)(14)

Under R.C. 2151.414(E)(2), a court must determine whether chronic mental illness of the parent “is so severe that it makes the parent unable to provide an adequate permanent home for the child at the present time and, as anticipated, within one year” after the hearing on permanent custody. ... We determine upon a thorough review of the record that clear and convincing evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that Todd’s risk of reoffending was unacceptably high, and that he was therefore unable to provide an adequate permanent home for the children. ... Under R.C. 2151.414(E)(14), we must look to whether “[t]he parent for any reason is unwilling to provide food, clothing, shelter, and other basic necessities for the child or to prevent the child from suffering physical, emotional, or sexual abuse or physical, emotional, or mental neglect.” ... However, the record contains extensive documentation that Sarah is not capable of adequately fulfilling her role as Todd’s primary support person and that she therefore cannot ensure that the children will be protected from Todd’s pedophilia and the possibility of his reoffending.

In determining a child’s best interest at a permanent-custody hearing, a court may not terminate parental rights solely because of a parent’s limited cognitive abilities, but may grant permanent custody when other evidence supports the statutory findings.

In re J.K. · filed 2013-03-18(D)

We hold that when determining the best interest of a child under R.C. 2151.414(D) at a permanent-custody hearing, a trial court may not base its decision solely on the limited cognitive abilities of the parents. ... The instant case is distinguishable from In re D.A. In the instant case, the court’s finding the children could not be placed with Appellant within a reasonable time was supported by evidence other than her limited cognitive abilities. ... Based on the evidence, we find the court did not err in granting permanent custody to Appellee, and did not base its findings solely on Appellant’s low intellectual functioning as prohibited by In re D.A., supra.

Chronic mental illness and chemical dependency support a reasonable-time finding when their severity prevents the parent from providing an adequate permanent home at judgment and, as anticipated, within one year, notwithstanding very recent recovery efforts.

In re A.W. · filed 2015-02-04(E)(2)

We conclude that there is competent, credible evidence in the record supporting a firm conviction or belief that appellant suffers from chronic mental health and chemical dependency that is so severe that it makes her unable to provide an adequate permanent home for A.W. at the time of judgment and, as anticipated, within one year after the hearing on the motion for permanent custody.

Section 2151.414(E)(2) supports a reasonable-time placement finding when a parent's severe chemical dependency prevents an adequate permanent home now and for at least one year after the hearing.

In re B.K. · filed 2017-09-22(E)(2)

As to R.C. 2151.414(E)(2), the trial court found that at the time of trial, mother was “not able to provide an adequate permanent home for the children * * * as she has not has not been able to demonstrate a long period of sobriety and is not likely to provide that home for at least a year.” The trial court indicated that mother’s addiction to heroin began prior to LCCS involvement and that despite beginning intensive outpatient treatment, mother was not able to successfully complete the substance abuse services. ... We find that the trial court's decision was supported by clear and convincing evidence, and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

A parent's inconsistent participation in recommended mental-health services may support a Section 2151.414(E)(2) finding that severe mental illness prevents an adequate permanent home.

In re G.P. · filed 2018-11-14(E)(2)

A parent’s inconsistent participation in recommended mental health services is sufficient to support a finding under R.C. 2151.414(E)(2). See In re Mar.H., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-17-1171, 2018-Ohio-883, ¶ 45. The record shows that mother’s participation in her mental health services was—at best—inconsistent and that she stopped participating in services altogether for more than a year. Moreover, there is no evidence that mother has ever engaged in mental health treatment for a prolonged, sustained period or that she can or will successfully manage her mental health conditions within one year after the permanent custody hearing. Accordingly, we find that the trial court’s determination under R.C. 2151.141(E)(2) is supported by the evidence.

Section 2151.414(E)(2) permits a placement finding when a parent's intellectual disability prevents an adequate permanent home now or within one year after the hearing.

In re F.S. · filed 2021-02-08(E)(2)

Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(E)(2), the juvenile court may determine that an intellectual disability is so severe that it makes a parent unable to provide an adequate permanent home for the child at the present time and, as anticipated, within one year after the court holds the permanent custody hearing.

A permanent-custody best-interest decision may not rest solely on a parent's limited cognitive abilities, but intellectual disability may be considered with other statutory factors and failure to engage in services.

In re B.G. · filed 2021-12-06(D)

We also note that the record does not indicate that the trial court made its decision to grant permanent custody solely on the basis of R.H. and B.G.Sr.’s intellectual disabilities. ... The trial court found that three factors in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) supported the conclusion that a grant of permanent custody to the CPSU was in the child’s best interests.

Absent a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law under Section 2151.414(C), a trial court need not separately state its findings on each subsection (E) factor.

In re I.B-C. · filed 2019-04-03(C), (E)

Thus, in the absence of a proper request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, a trial court need not specifically set forth its findings regarding the R.C. 2151.414(E) factors.

Section 2151.414(C) requires a party to timely request findings of fact or conclusions of law in a permanent-custody proceeding.

Matter of M., Unpublished Decision (4-17-1998) · filed 1998-04-17(C)

The statute cited by appellant generally mandates findings of fact and conclusions of law only upon a timely request. R.C. 2151.414 (C) which specifically governs the permanent custody motion in the case sub judice requires a timely request.

Section 2151.414(C) requires a written opinion containing findings of fact and conclusions of law only when a party requests one.

In Re Bernthold, Unpublished Decision (2-15-2001) · filed 2001-02-15(C)

While in other circumstances it might be questionable as to whether such findings are sufficient, R.C. 2151.414 (C) provides the court must file a written opinion, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, only if a request is made by a party. No such request was made in this matter.

Section 2151.414(D) does not require specific factual findings corresponding to each best-interest factor unless a party timely requests findings of fact and conclusions of law.

In the Matter of Day, Unpublished Decision (2-15-2001) · filed 2001-02-15(C), (D)

Further, R.C. 2151.414 (D) does not require that the trial court set forth the specific factual findings that correlate to the factors set forth in the statute unless a party requests findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Specific factual findings corresponding to the best-interest factors in Section 2151.414(D) are required only when a party requests findings of fact and conclusions of law.

In Re Templeton, Unpublished Decision (3-5-2001) · filed 2001-03-05(C), (D)

A trial court does not have to set forth the specific factual findings that correlate to the factors in R.C. 2151.414 (D) unless a party requests findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Given section 2151.414's exact and stringent requirements, the preferred practice is to make discrete factual findings tied to the evidence and statutory factors so the parent and reviewing court can understand the basis for permanent custody.

In Re McColloch, Unpublished Decision (12-20-2002) · filed 2002-12-20(C)

R.C. 2151.414 imposes exact and stringent requirements for issuance of the permanent custody order that the section authorizes. To satisfy them, the preferred practice is to set out discrete findings of fact, relating those findings to the evidence that was offered to support them and the statutory factors the court is required to consider in reaching the dual conclusions that a permanent custody order requires. A format of that kind has two benefits: it advises a parent of the particular causes that resulted in the loss of his or her child, and it tells an appellate court why the juvenile court made the findings required.

Under section 2151.414(C), a court granting permanent custody must issue a written opinion with findings of fact and conclusions of law only if a party requests one.

In Re Hess, Unpublished Decision (3-21-2003) · filed 2003-03-21(C)

Moreover, the statute dealing with the hearing on the motion for permanent custody as filed in this case expressly states that a court granting permanent custody need only file a written opinion setting forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law if a party requests such opinion.

When a party requests findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court must identify the specific factual findings corresponding to the best-interest factors in division (D), rather than merely state that it considered them.

In Re Myers, Unpublished Decision (5-23-2003) · filed 2003-05-23(D)

Because the Myers requested findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court was required to set forth specific factual findings regarding the factors in R.C. 2151.414 (D). See In re Dyal . The trial court's failure to do so is error.

Upon a party's request, subsection (C) requires a written opinion setting out findings of fact and conclusions of law in the permanent-custody proceeding.

In Matter of Teasley, Unpublished Decision (9-25-2003) · filed 2003-09-25(C)

Because the determination was made pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 , the trial court, through the magistrate, was required "upon the request of any party" to file a written opinion setting forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law in relation to the proceeding. R.C. 2151.414 (C).

Section 2151.414(C) requires a trial court to file written findings of fact and conclusions of law only if a party requests them.

In Re Sanders Children, Unpublished Decision (10-29-2004) · filed 2004-10-29(C)

First, we note that a trial court must only file a witten opinion which sets forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law if requested to do so by a party. R.C. 2151.414 (C). In this case, no such request was made. Therefore, the trial court was not required to state its findings of fact.

Section 2151.414(C)'s written opinion requirement is satisfied when the judgment entry adequately summarizes the permanent custody decision and its basis.

Matter of Jessica v. Unpublished Decision (1-22-1999) · filed 1999-01-22(C)

R.C. 2151.414 (C) provides, in part, that "if the court grants permanent custody of a child to a movant * * * the court, upon the request of any party, shall file a written opinion setting forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law in relation to the proceeding." In this case, appellant's trial counsel requested a "written opinion." The record indicates that the juvenile court adequately and succinctly summarized its decision and the basis for that decision in its December 22, 1997 judgment entry. Thus, we find no error by the juvenile court in not issuing additional findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Section 2151.414(C) requires a guardian ad litem's written report to be submitted before or at the permanent-custody hearing, but permits the guardian to reserve a final recommendation until after the evidence.

In Re Lay, Unpublished Decision (5-4-1998) · filed 1998-05-04(C)

The guardian ad litem is required to submit a report pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (C) which provides in pertinent part: 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 or section 2151.35 of the Revised Code, ... but shall not be submitted under oath. ... Furthermore, the guardian ad litem did submit his written report "prior to or at the time of the hearing," but withheld making a recommendation until after all the testimony had been presented. ... However, in the instant case, we find no error in the guardian ad litem's submission of a written report on the first day of the hearing for permanent custody, with a reservation of recommendation until after the close of evidence.

Section 2151.414(C) requires a guardian ad litem’s written report, but failure to object waives the error, and a late substantive report reviewed before judgment does not warrant reversal without actual prejudice.

In the Matter of Conner, Unpublished Decision (11-28-2000) · filed 2000-11-28(C)

We agree that an error occurs when a report required by R.C. 2151.414 (C) is not submitted. ... However, any claim of error arising from the failure of the guardian ad litem to submit the report is waived if it is not objected to at the time. ... Moreover, even if we found that she had not waived this right, the fact remains that a substantive report was filed and reviewed by the court before adoption of the magistrate's decision. Although Ms. Connor points to potential prejudices that could result from the late submission, she does not point to any actual prejudice. We do not find any either.

A guardian ad litem's best-interest recommendation is properly before the permanent-custody court under section 2151.414(C) despite an objection that the report was not under oath.

In the Matter of Jasmine D., Unpublished Decision (6-8-2001) · filed 2001-06-08(C)

the trial court improperly considered the recommendation of the guardian ad litem that permanent custody be given to the Agency because his report was not submitted under oath. ... Finally, the report of the guardian ad litem , in which he expressed his recommendation that it was in Jasmine D.'s best interest to be in the permanent custody of the Agency, was properly before the court pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (C).

Failure to object to submission and consideration of a guardian ad litem report after the hearing waives the statutory timing error under section 2151.414(C), leaving only plain-error review.

In Re Davis, Unpublished Decision (6-14-2001) · filed 2001-06-14(C)

Although Ms. Davis now assigns error to the submission and consideration of the GAL's report after the hearing, no objection was made to the failure to submit a report at the hearing, and no objection was made to the judge's express intention to receive and consider a report after the hearing, or to his order to submit a report for consideration after the hearing. The failure to object to this procedural irregularity is a waiver of error. ... We can sustain this assignment only on a finding of plain error.

A guardian ad litem’s report must be filed before or at the permanent-custody hearing under Section 2151.414(C), but failing to object in the trial court waives an objection to later submission.

In Re Cooper, Unpublished Decision (8-28-2001) · filed 2001-08-28(C)

A report of a guardian ad litem should be filed either before or at the time of the hearing, not afterward. R.C. 2151.414 (C). However, appellant waived any objection to the later submission of the report by failing to object before the trial court.

A guardian ad litem report assists but does not control the permanent-custody determination, which requires consideration of all the evidence bearing on best interest.

In the Matter of Meek, Unpublished Decision (11-19-2001) · filed 2001-11-19(D)

The report of the guardian ad litem is of help and assistance to the trial court, but is not determinative of the issues. A trial court's duty is to determine the best interest of the children after a review of all the evidence presented, including a guardian ad litem's report.