Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2151.414

Section 2151.414(D) requires weighing all relevant factors to select the child's best option; a placement that avoids terminating parental rights is neither controlling nor entitled to greater weight.

In re B.F. · filed 2019-12-30(D)

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

Section 2151.414(D) requires weighing all relevant factors to select the child's best option; a placement that avoids terminating parental rights is neither controlling nor entitled to greater weight.

In re A. F. · filed 2019-12-30(D)

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

Substantial compliance with agency regulations governing substitute-care and relative placements is not a mandatory prerequisite to a court's permanent-custody determination under Section 2151.414.

In re D.P. · filed 2020-01-06(B)(1)(a), (D)(1), (E)

However, appellant herein provides no clear authority for her proposition that substantial compliance with the regulations for substitute care and relative placements in OAC 5101:2-42 functions as a mandatory hurdle to be cleared before a trial court may grant permanent custody to an agency. Indeed, “*** OAC Section 5101 pertains to [an agency’s] obligations and its determination regarding substitute-care placement, rather than a trial court's permanent custody determination.”

The availability of a placement that preserves parental rights is not controlling in division (D)'s best-interest analysis and need not receive more weight than other factors.

In re S.F. · filed 2020-02-28(D)(1)

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

Section 2151.414(D) requires weighing all relevant factors to find the child's best option and does not make a placement that avoids termination of parental rights controlling or entitled to extra weight.

In re M.O. · filed 2020-05-04(D)

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

Section 2151.414(D) permits permanent custody despite willing alternative placements when the trial court weighs the relevant factors and finds neither alternative serves the children's best interest.

In re A.J.R. · filed 2020-09-18(D)

The trial court acknowledged that two willing alternative placements existed but determined that neither placement was in the children’s best interest. ... We conclude that the trial court properly weighed the relevant factors in R.C. 2151.414(D) and that the trial court’s findings were supported by competent, credible evidence.

Section 2151.414(D)(1)(d) does not support permanent custody when an approved relative can provide a legally secure placement and the trial court's contrary concerns are speculative and unsupported.

In re B.J. · filed 2021-02-10(D)(1)(d)

The record demonstrates that a legally secure placement for B.J. could be obtained with maternal grandfather. We therefore find that the trial court’s determination that a grant of permanent custody to HCJFS was in B.J.’s best interest was not supported by sufficient evidence.

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

In re D.K. · filed 2021-03-10(D)

If permanent custody is in the child[ ]’s best interest, legal custody to Grandmother necessarily is not.

In assessing legally secure placement, the court need not find that terminating parental rights is the only option.

In re M.M. · filed 2021-06-28(D)(1)(d)

{¶56} Moreover, a trial court that is evaluating a child’s need for a legally secure permanent placement, and whether the child can achieve that type of placement, need not determine that terminating parental rights is “not only a necessary option, but also the only option.” Schaefer at ¶ 64.

The best-interest inquiry weighs all relevant factors, gives none heightened weight, and does not require proof that no suitable relative is available.

In re J.N. · filed 2021-07-07(D)

{¶13} The court must consider all of the elements in R.C. 2151.414(D) as well as other relevant factors; there is not one element that is given greater weight than the others, In re Schafer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498, 2006-Ohio-5513, 857 N.E.2d 532, ¶ 56. Schafer notes a trial court's statutory duty in determining whether it is in the best interest of a child to grant permanent custody to an agency does not include finding by clear and convincing evidence that no suitable relative was available for placement. “The statute requires a weighing of all relevant factors, and the trial court did that in this case.

Subsection (D)'s best-interest factors guide both permanent-custody and competing legal-custody determinations, and a relative's willingness to care for the child does not alter the permanent-custody analysis.

In re M.N. · filed 2021-11-15(D)

The best interest factors of R.C. 2151.414(D) are not only relevant to the question of permanent custody, but also provide appropriate guidance in determining whether a grant of legal custody is in the best interest of a child. ... Accordingly, the willingness of a relative to care for a child does not alter what the court must consider in determining permanent custody.

A child's need for permanence supports permanent custody when neither parent nor an available relative can provide a safe and stable home.

In re C.W. · filed 2021-11-24(D)(1)(d)

Neither parent was able to provide B.M. with a safe and stable home and CSB had been unable to find a suitable relative who was willing and able to do so. The trial court reasonably concluded that B.M. needed a legally secure permanent placement and that permanent custody was the best option to provide him with stability.

A suitable relative placement is not entitled to greater weight than the other relevant best-interest evidence.

In re J.S.R. · filed 2022-02-18(D)(1)

{¶23} Anderson asserts that McNutt’s availability as a relative placement should be given greater weight in the analysis of J.R.’s best interest and that the trial court’s decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Revised Code section 2151.414 and the holding of In re Schaefer directly refute his argument.

If permanent custody is in the children's best interest under subsection (D)(1), legal custody to another adult necessarily is not.

In re K.M. · filed 2022-03-23(D)(1)

If permanent custody was in the children’s best interest, however, legal custody to another adult necessarily was not.

A child’s need for legally secure permanent placement may support permanent custody when competent evidence shows the need cannot be met by returning legal custody to a relative.

In re C & C Children · filed 2022-10-21(D)(1)(d)

{¶35} The juvenile court’s best-interest finding under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(d), that the children’s needs for legally secure permanent placement could not be achieved without a grant of permanent custody, was supported by competent and credible evidence. That is the only finding that grandmother challenges. Accordingly, we hold that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying a return of legal custody to grandmother and in awarding permanent custody to HCJFS.

A finding of abandonment independently satisfies the first prong of the permanent-custody test, allowing the court to proceed to best interests without making a parental-placement finding.

In re J.G. · filed 2021-04-28(B)(1)(b)

A trial court’s finding of abandonment under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(b) will satisfy the first prong of the permanent custody test, independent of a finding under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) [Parental Placement within a Reasonable Time], allowing the court to move on to the second prong of considering whether the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child.

When abandonment is established under section 2151.414(B)(1)(b), the court need not make division (E) findings that the child cannot or should not be placed with a parent or determine whether the agency made reasonable reunification efforts.

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

We note the trial court in the case sub judice made findings and conclusions under R.C. 2151.414 (E), which it was not required to do in regard to appellant, as the court did not have to rely on R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a), based on the finding of abandonment. See In re Willis , Coshocton App. No. 02CA15, 2002-Ohio-6795, ¶ 30. See, also, In re Starkey (1999), 150 Ohio App.3d 612 , 617 : "Hence, because the agency proved and the court found that the children were abandoned, the court was not required to determine whether the agency used reasonable efforts to reunify or whether the child could not or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time."

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(b)'s abandonment ground eliminates the need for a separate reasonable-time placement finding under division (B)(1)(a) or a reasonable reunification-efforts inquiry under division (E)(1).

In Re Bender, Unpublished Decision (5-3-2004) · filed 2004-05-03(B)(1)(a), (B)(1)(b), (E)(1)

However, in the case sub judice, there was no requirement for a R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a) finding, based on the court's finding of abandonment (Judgment Entry at 1), which is not herein challenged by appellant. ... "Hence, because the agency proved and the court found that the children were abandoned, the court was not required to determine whether the agency used reasonable efforts to reunify or whether the child could not or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time."

Section 2151.414(D)'s best-interest factors may favor maintaining a child with severe special needs in a stable planned permanent living arrangement rather than granting permanent custody for an uncertain adoption.

In Re Priser, Unpublished Decision (3-19-2004) · filed 2004-03-19(D)(1)-(4)

The trial court's findings clearly demonstrate that the court considered the statutory factors in R.C. 2151.414 (D)(1) and (2), and that those factors favor keeping Luke in a PPLA in his current foster home rather than awarding permanent custody to MCCS. ... The State additionally argues that the trial court's refusal to qualify Ms. Nemeth as an expert witness prevented her from presenting evidence that Luke needs a legally secure placement that cannot be achieved unless he is adopted, which would require a grant of permanent custody to the agency, a factor the court must consider in determining the best interest of the child. R.C. 2151.414 (D)(4). We disagree with this assertion. ... Based upon the totality of the evidence presented, including Nemeth's other testimony, the trial court obviously disagreed with Nemeth's view of the best placement for Luke, and rejected it, which the court was entitled to do. ... Having carefully reviewed this record we conclude that there is clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's determination that a PPLA is in Luke's best interest. Given the present circumstances, which are adequately set out in the trial court's findings, this case presents a situation where use of a PPLA is a common-sense way in which to satisfy Luke's best interest. In re Tanker (2001), 142 Ohio App.3d 159 , 167 . No abuse of discretion has been demonstrated.

Section 2151.414 does not require a court to find that a planned permanent living arrangement no longer serves a child’s best interests before granting permanent custody; after a subsection (B)(1) predicate is established, the court must choose the best option for the child, and the availability of a placement that preserves parental rights is not controlling or entitled to greater weight.

In re J.K. · filed 2012-01-18(B)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 requires the court to find the best option for the child once a determination has been made pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) through ... (d). The statute does not make the availability of a placement that would not require a termination of parental rights an all-controlling factor. The statute does not even require the court to weigh that factor more heavily than other factors.” ... Based upon this rationale, we reject appellant’s argument that the trial court erred by failing to determine that the PPLA no longer served the child’s best interests.

A parent’s two child-endangering convictions can establish under subsection (E) that the child cannot or should not be placed with that parent.

In re A.A.-V. · filed 2022-06-09(B)(1)(a), (E)(5), (6)

The juvenile court’s finding that Father was convicted of two counts of child endangering under R.C. 2919.22 was sufficient to establish that A.A.-V. could not or should not be placed with Father pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(E). The fact that he was also incarcerated and had not been able to complete any case-plan goals provided further support for the trial court’s decision.

Sections 2151.414(D)(5) and (E)(7)(c) make a parent's child-endangering conviction involving the child or a sibling a best-interest factor supporting permanent custody.

In Re K.P., Unpublished Decision (3-25-2004) · filed 2004-03-25(D)(5), (E)(7)(c)

R.C. 2151.414 (D) provides as follows: ... "(5) Whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this section apply in relation to the parents and child." ... Finally, because Davis was convicted of child endangering as to his son, C.D., and C.D.'s sibling, A.E., R.C. 2151.414 (D)(5) was also satisfied. ... Because there was evidence that satisfied all of the factors listed in R.C. 2151.414 (D), it cannot be said that awarding permanent custody to CCDCFS was against the manifest weight of the evidence nor an abuse of the trial court's discretion.

Sections 2151.414(D)(5) and (E)(7)(c) make a parent's child-endangering conviction involving the child or a sibling a best-interest factor supporting permanent custody.

In Re K.P., Unpublished Decision (3-31-2004) · filed 2004-03-31(D)(5), (E)(7)(c)

Finally, because Davis was convicted of child endangering as to his son, C.D., and C.D.'s sibling, A.E., R.C. 2151.414 (D)(5) was also satisfied.

A parent's conviction for kidnapping the child is a qualifying offense under Section 2151.414(E)(6) supporting the permanent-custody statutory ground.

In re H.A. · filed 2020-05-14(E)(6)

As noted above, Father was convicted of kidnapping H.A. The offense of kidnapping, in violation of R.C. 2905.01, is listed as an offense under R.C. 2151.414(E)(6).

A child-endangering conviction and abandonment supplied clear and convincing statutory grounds for permanent custody under sections 2151.414(E)(6) and (B)(1)(b).

In re W.P. · filed 2025-01-21(E)(6), (B)(1)(b)

We find the record contains clear and convincing evidence of grounds to support the granting of permanent custody of the children to SCDJFS, to wit: conviction for child endangering and abandonment.

A parent's child-endangering convictions involving the child and a sibling can establish the reasonable-time placement threshold.

In re S.J. · filed 2026-02-18(E)(6)

CSB presented evidence by way of certified copies of judgment entries, proving that Mother had been convicted of two counts of child endangering under R.C. 2919.22(A), involving the child and her brother in 2022; and one count of child endangering under R.C. 2919.22(C), involving the child in 2024. Accordingly, CSB proved one of its first prong allegations by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 2151.414(D)'s best-interest factors may favor permanent custody and adoption over a grandmother's legal-custody proposal when the child is thriving in a more stable relative placement, the guardian ad litem supports adoption, and the proposed household is implausible.

In Re Samuel M., Unpublished Decision (3-31-2004) · filed 2004-03-31(D)(1)-(4)

With regard to R.C. 2151.414 (D)(1), the child's interaction and interrelationship with relatives and caregivers, the trial court found and the record established that Samuel was "flourishing" with Treyvon and was close in age to Treyvon's son, who is like a sibling to Samuel. The record also established that Samuel is close to his siblings and to Christina. However, as noted by the guardian ad litem and established in the record, Samuel's siblings are much older than he is and will soon be out of the house. Moreover, Christina is no longer a young woman. The court also noted Treyvon's testimony that she would not deny visitation between Samuel and his siblings and grandmother. ... R.C. 2151.414 (D)(2) directs the trial court to consider the child's wishes as expressed through his guardian ad litem. Samuel's guardian ad litem, after carefully considering all of the circumstances, expressed the opinion that Samuel's best interest would be served through a grant of permanent custody to LCCS and subsequent adoption by Treyvon. ... As for R.C. 2151.414 (D)(3), the custodial history of the child, at the time of the hearing, Samuel had lived with Treyvon for nearly half his life, longer than he had lived anywhere else. As the trial court noted, this was the most stable placement Samuel had ever had. As for R.C. 2151.414 (D)(4), whether a secure placement can be achieved without permanent custody to LCCS, the trial court and the guardian ad litem noted, and the record bore out, that Samuel's prospect for stability with his parents is slim. Christina's plan to raise Samuel with Halloran in the house is, as the trial court noted, not "plausible." Samuel's best opportunity is adoption into a loving, stable family with a child his own age without the threat of that placement ever being in jeopardy. ... Based upon a thorough examination of the record, we find that the evidence clearly and convincingly supports the trial court's finding that a grant of permanent custody to LCCS is in Samuel's best interest.

Section 2151.414(D)(4) does not make the availability of a legal-custody placement that would preserve parental rights controlling or require that possibility to receive greater weight than the other best-interest factors.

In Matter of Norman, Unpublished Decision (12-22-2006) · filed 2006-12-22(D)(4)

{¶ 39} As cited by LCCS, the Supreme Court of Ohio has recently addressed this issue in In re Schaefer , 111 Ohio St.3d 498 , 2006-Ohio-5513 . In Schaefer , the court held that R.C. 2151.414 (D) "does not make the availability of a placement that would not require a termination of parental rights an all-controlling factor. The statute does not even require the court to weigh that factor more heavily than other factors." Id. at ¶ 64. {¶ 40} In the present case, looking at the factors outlined in R.C. 2151.414 (D), we find that Norman has been in the custody of others since days after his birth. We note that Norman has special needs that have been addressed by Ester S., his current caregiver. Norman has bonded with her and she has expressed an interest in adopting him. Finally, we acknowledge Norman's need for secure and permanent placement. Based on these facts, we find that the trial court did not err in awarding LCCS permanent custody even though awarding legal custody to Ester S. may have been possible. Appellant's second assignment of error is not well-taken.

Section 2151.414(D)'s best-interest factors apply to permanent-custody decisions and also guide whether granting legal custody is in a child's best interest.

In Re J. A., 24134 (7-23-2008) · filed 2008-07-23(D)

The best interest factors of R.C. 2151.414 (D) are not only relevant to the question of permanent custody, but also provide appropriate guidance in determining whether a grant of legal custody is in the best interest of a child.

Section 2151.414(D)'s permanent-custody best-interest factors may guide a legal-custody determination, but they do not fully encompass the considerations relevant to allocating custody and visitation between parents.

In Re B. G., 24187 (9-30-2008) · filed 2008-09-30(D)

Mother has failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the trial court in applying the best interest test set forth in R.C. 2151.414 (D). She cites no case law to support her position that the trial court applied the wrong test and this Court has held that the best interest test set forth in R.C. 2151.414 (D), although it relates to permanent custody, "provide[s] guidance" in legal custody determinations. ... Because the best interest factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414 (D) are tailored to address whether parental rights should be terminated, they do not fully address all of the best interest considerations that would be relevant to this situation.

Under section 2151.414(D)(1), a court may conduct a single best-interest review when choosing between permanent custody to an agency and legal custody to a relative because, if permanent custody is in the child's best interest, legal custody to the relative necessarily is not.

In re L.C. · filed 2013-06-28(D)(1)

Because the trial court’s decision to deny the motion for legal custody to the maternal aunt was also based on the best interest of the children, “this Court typically conducts a single ‘best interest’ review of the trial court’s decision to place the child[ren] in the permanent custody of the agency rather than in the legal custody to a relative.” In re I.A., 9th Dist. No. 26642, 2013-Ohio-360, ¶ 10. If permanent custody is in the child’s best interest, legal custody to the aunt necessarily is not. Id. “‘Consequently, this Court will review the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D) in reviewing the [best interest] decision of the trial court * * *.’” Id., quoting In re T-G.M., 9th Dist. No. 25858, 2011-Ohio-3940, ¶ 13.

If permanent custody is in the children’s best interest under subsection (D), placing them in a parent’s legal custody necessarily is not.

In re S.A.-C. · filed 2017-12-29(D)

If permanent custody was in the children’s best interest, legal custody to Father necessarily was not. “‘Consequently, this Court will review the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D) in reviewing the [best interest] decision of the trial court * * *.’” Id. When determining the children’s best interest under R.C. 2151.414(D), the juvenile court must consider all relevant factors, including the interaction and interrelationships of the children, their wishes, the custodial history of the children, and their need for permanence in their lives.

A relative's potential legal custody did not defeat permanent custody where no legal-custody motion was pending and the evidence established that permanent custody served the child's best interest.

In re L.T. · filed 2025-05-12(D)

Father argues a less restrictive alternative to permanent custody existed because the child’s great-aunt could assume legal custody. However, there was no motion for legal custody pending before the trial court, and the evidence before the court established permanent custody was in the best interest of the child.

A court need not favor a relative over agency custody when the subsection (D) factors establish that permanent custody serves the child's best interest.

In re T.F. · filed 2025-11-06(D)

The willingness of a relative to care for a child does not alter what a court considers in determining whether to grant permanent custody. . . . The court is not required to favor a relative if, after considering all R.C. 2151.414(D) factors, it is in the child’s best interest for the agency to be granted permanent custody.

If agency permanent custody is in the child's best interest, a competing relative legal-custody placement necessarily is not.

In re K.P. · filed 2025-11-07(D)(1)

This holds true even in the face of Grandparents' competing ... motion for legal custody. This is because, as it is now well established, "[i]f permanent custody to the [a]gency is in the children's best interests, legal custody to a relative necessarily is not."

Section 2151.414(A)(1) requires formal notice only of the original permanent-custody hearing following the motion, while later or rescheduled hearings may be conveyed through constructive notice to the parent's attorney.

In Re Keith, Unpublished Decision (4-16-2004) · filed 2004-04-16(A)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 requires only notice of the original hearing following the filing of a motion for permanent custody. ... Afterwards, constructive notice of hearings is proper. ... Normally, notice of new or rescheduled hearings is sent to the parent's attorney, as prescribed under Juv.R. 20. ... The parent's attorney's statement to the juvenile court that he or she communicated with the parent who failed to appear, proves that the parent had constructive notice of the permanent custody hearing. ... There was no lack of notice since Gwendolyn received actual notice of her first permanent custody hearing and constructive notice of her final permanent custody hearing. Nothing more is required.

Sections 2151.414(D)(1) and (D)(4) permit the court to consider keeping siblings together and to reject relatives as secure alternative custodians when they seek only one sibling and other evidence makes them unsuitable.

In the Matter of Paris, Unpublished Decision (4-16-2004) · filed 2004-04-16(D)(1), (D)(4)

Finally, John argues that the magistrate failed to adequately consider other suitable custodians, specifically, Sandy Eggleston, a maternal great aunt; and Bertha Eggleston, a maternal great grandmother. With respect to Sandy Eggleston, the magistrate found that she was only interested in custody of Kiwani and that she had had only minimal contact with CSB. Obviously, it is best if siblings are placed in the same home. With respect to Bertha Eggleston, she too was only interested in custody of Kiwani. Talia had alleged that Bertha Eggleston had sexually abused Kiwani. The record supports these findings, and we cannot say that the trial court erred in concluding that these individuals were not appropriate for custody or placement.

Section 2151.414(D) requires a trial court deciding a child's best interests to consider all relevant factors, including the child's relationships, wishes, custodial history, and need for a legally secure permanent placement.

In Re A.U., Unpublished Decision (11-19-2004) · filed 2004-11-19(D)

R.C. 2151.414 (D) requires trial courts to consider all relevant factors in determining a child's best interests, including, but not limited to the following: ... Our review of the record indicates that the appropriate factors were considered in determining the best interests of the child, and that the trial court's findings in this regard are supported by the evidence in the record.

R.C. 2151.414(D) does not require a child's adoptability to be firmly established before permanent custody may be granted.

In Re Bentley, Unpublished Decision (3-21-2005) · filed 2005-03-21(D)

We must note that although the trial court considered Casondra's and Bridgette's adoptability before making its decision, R.C. 2151.414 (D) does not require that adoptability be firmly established before permanent custody can be granted.

Section 2151.414(D)'s best-interest factors may be used to decide legal custody, including the child's relationships, wishes, custodial history, and need for a legally secure placement.

In Re Starks, Unpublished Decision (4-15-2005) · filed 2005-04-15(D)

In determining the best interests of Kaylee, the trial court used the factors listed in R.C. 2151.414 (D), the same factors utilized in permanent custody cases. The statute states in pertinent part: {¶ 38} "In determining the best interest of a child ____ the court shall consider all relevant factors, including but not limited to, the following: {¶ 39} "1) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's parents, siblings, relatives, foster care givers and out-of-home providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child; {¶ 40} "2) The wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the child or through the child's guardian ad litem, with due regard for the maturity of the child; {¶ 41} "3) The custodial history of the child, including whether the child has been in the temporary custody of one or ore children's services agencies ____ {¶ 42} "4) The child's need for a legally secure placement____" ... The trial court clearly had an adequate basis to find that it was in Kaylee's best interests to be placed in the legal custody of Shanna and Patrick Hines.

Section 2151.414(D) requires a juvenile court deciding a child's best interest to consider every enumerated factor, while permitting consideration of other relevant factors.

In Re J.O., Unpublished Decision (5-18-2005) · filed 2005-05-18(D)

"Although the trial court is not precluded from considering other relevant factors, the statute explicitly requires the court to consider all of the enumerated factors."

Sections 2151.414(B) and (C) require a permanent-custody determination to focus on the child's best interest rather than the parent's circumstances or the effect of permanent custody on the parent.

In the Matter of Schreiber, Unpublished Decision (10-13-2005) · filed 2005-10-13(B), (C)

In addition, R.C. 2151.414 (B) requires the trial court to focus on the best interest of the child instead of the parent; and R.C. 2151.414 (C) directs the trial court not to consider the effect that granting permanent custody to ACCSB would have upon the parent. Lilly's arguments tend to focus on her own conditions, and have little or no bearing on the best interest of her child. In effect, the evidence against her continuing to have parental rights, which we have already stated is clear and convincing evidence, is not diminished or rebutted by any of her arguments. The trial court's judgment entry correctly addressed the best interest of Bethany instead of Lilly. There was no abuse of discretion in the decision made by the trial court.

Section 2151.414(D) requires clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and identifies the factors used to make that determination.

In Re Wilson, Unpublished Decision (11-14-2005) · filed 2005-11-14(D)

A court may only grant permanent custody upon a showing, by clear and convincing evidence, that an award of permanent custody is in the child's best interest. R.C. 2151.414 (D). Revised Code 2151.414(D) sets forth the factors a trial court should look to in determining the best interest of the child. ... In short, upon our review of the record, we find that the trial court did not err in finding that it was in Izaiah's best interest to be placed in permanent custody of SCDJFS, rather than to be placed in a planned permanent living arrangement, and did not err in terminating appellant's parental rights.

Section 2151.414(D) requires a juvenile court deciding whether permanent custody is in a child's best interest to consider every enumerated statutory factor, while permitting consideration of other relevant factors.

In Re D.M., Unpublished Decision (12-21-2005) · filed 2005-12-21(D)

When determining whether a grant of permanent custody is in the child's best interest, the juvenile court must consider the following factors: ... Although the trial court is not precluded from considering other relevant factors, the statute explicitly requires the court to consider all of the enumerated factors.

Section 2151.414(D) requires a juvenile court deciding whether permanent custody is in a child's best interest to consider the child's relationships and wishes, custodial history, need for legally secure placement, and any applicable factors in divisions (E)(7) through (11).

In Re J.N., Unpublished Decision (5-24-2006) · filed 2006-05-24(D)

When determining whether a grant of permanent custody is in the child's best interest, the juvenile court must consider the following factors: "(1) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's parents, siblings, relatives, foster caregivers and out-of-home providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child; "(2) The wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the child or through the child's guardian ad litem, with due regard for the maturity of the child; "(3) The custodial history of the child, including whether 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; "(4) The child's need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to the agency; [and] "(5) Whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this section apply in relation to the parents and child." R.C. 2151.414 (D)(1)-(5).

Section 2151.414(D)(2) requires the juvenile court to consider a child's wishes with due regard for the child's maturity, but competent, credible evidence may support finding a child too immature to express meaningful custody wishes.

In Re B.K., Unpublished Decision (8-28-2006) · filed 2006-08-28(D)(2)

Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (D), a trial court shall consider specific factors in determining whether a child's best interests would be served by granting a motion for permanent custody. Those factors include, but are not limited to: (2) the wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the child or through the child's guardian ad litem, with due regard for the maturity of the child. ... There was competent, credible evidence in the record for the juvenile court to find that the children were not mature enough to understand the proceedings and to express their wishes as to custody in a meaningful manner. ... Therefore, we cannot say that the juvenile court erred when it found that the children were too young to ascertain their wishes.

Section 2151.414(D) requires a court assessing a child's best interests to consider all relevant factors, including the child's relationships and wishes, custodial history, need for a legally secure permanent placement, and whether specified statutory factors apply.

In the Matter of K.B., Unpublished Decision (9-21-2006) · filed 2006-09-21(D)

In assessing the best interests of the child, the court is to consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) the interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's parents, siblings, relatives, foster caregivers and out-of-home providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child, (2) the wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the child or through the child's guardian ad litem, with due regard for the maturity of the child, (3) the custodial history of the child, (4) the child's need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to the agency, and (5) whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) apply in relation to the parents and child. R.C. 2151.414 (D).

Section 2151.414(D) requires a court deciding a child's best interest in a permanent-custody proceeding to consider all relevant factors, including the child's relationships, wishes, custodial history, need for a legally secure placement, and any applicable factors in divisions (E)(7) through (11).

In Re Lloyd, Unpublished Decision (10-20-2006) · filed 2006-10-20(D)

R.C. 2151.414 governs procedures upon the filing of a motion for permanent custody. Subsection (D) governs best interests and states the following: ... "(D) 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: ... "(1) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's parents, siblings, relatives, foster caregivers and out-of-home providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child; ... "(2) The wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the child or through the child's guardian ad litem, with due regard for the maturity of the child; ... "(3) The custodial history of the child, including whether 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; ... "(4) The child's need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to the agency; ... "(5) Whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this section apply in relation to the parents and child." ... The adjudication of dependency of appellant's three other children was introduced as State's Exhibit A with no objection. T. at 2. Ms. Wanosik testified appellant failed to cooperate with the prior case plan and placement with relatives was unavailable given the maternal grandparents' refusal to acknowledge the seriousness of the problems in the family. T. at 35-43, 60-61. As for the custodial history of the child, the child has been in appellee's temporary custody since July of 2004, some nineteen months. T. at 34. The child is in a home placement with her siblings and available for adoption. T. at 70. The child's father relinquished custody. T. at 35. ... Upon review, we find the trial court did not err in granting permanent custody of the child to appellee.

After determining parental unfitness, a court must decide whether permanent custody is in the children's best interest by considering all relevant factors, including the five factors listed in division (D).

In Re John B., Unpublished Decision (11-20-2006) · filed 2006-11-20(D)

Once the court has determined parental unfitness, it must then determine whether permanent custody is in the best interest of the children by considering all relevant factors, including, but not limited to the following five factors listed in R.C. 2151.414 (D): ... Based upon the evidence presented in the record, we conclude that the trial court finding of abandonment was supported by the evidence and that the court properly considered the factors under R.C. 2151.414 (D) in making its determination that permanent custody to WCDJFS was in the children's best interest.

Section 2151.414(D) supports a best-interest finding when a young child has long been separated from an incarcerated parent who failed to engage in reunification services, while a bonded foster parent meets the child's special needs and wishes to adopt.

In Matter of Johnny H., Unpublished Decision (2-23-2007) · filed 2007-02-23(D)

In determining whether "permanent commitment is in the best interest of the child," R.C. 2151.414 (D) requires the trial court to consider the following, non-exhaustive, list of factors: ... We find that clear and convincing evidence supports a finding that permanent custody is in Johnny's best interests. Johnny had not lived with appellant since he was two months old due to her incarcerations. In between her incarcerations, she failed to engage in services that would allow her to become stable and regain custody of Johnny. Johnny's special needs were being met by his foster mother, with whom he had bonded well, and who wished to adopt Johnny. The lack of connection between appellant and her son, due to her incarcerations and Johnny's need for permanency and stability, supports a finding that a grant of permanent custody would be in his best interest.

Section 2151.414(D)(2) permits a juvenile court to consider a child’s wishes either directly from the child or through the child’s guardian ad litem and does not require the court to consider whether the child wants to testify or whether testifying would be detrimental.

In re C.F. · filed 2007-03-28(D)(2)

The statute unambiguously gives the trial court the choice of considering the child’s wishes directly from the child or through the guardian ad litem. Therefore, our answer to the second certified-conflict question is no. When determining the wishes of the child, a court is required by R.C. 2151.414(D)(2) to consider the wishes of the child, “as expressed directly by the child or through the child’s guardian ad litem, with due regard for the maturity of the child.” The statute does not impose the additional requirement that the trial court also consider whether the children want to testify or whether testifying would be detrimental to them.

Section 2151.414(B) permits a court to grant permanent custody upon clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child's best interest, as evaluated under the factors in division (D).

In Re Dunn, 2008ap030018 (7-28-2008) · filed 2008-07-28(B) and (D)

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

Section 2151.414(D) requires a juvenile court determining a child's best interest in a permanent-custody proceeding to consider the statute's enumerated factors.

In Re Carey, 08 Ca 46 (11-20-2008) · filed 2008-11-20(D)

In determining the best interest of a child, the trial court is required to consider the factors contained in R.C. 2151.414 (D). ... Upon review of the record in the case sub judice, we conclude the trial court's grant of permanent custody of Sarah to FCCPS was made in the consideration of the child's best interests and did not constitute an error or an abuse of discretion.

Section 2151.414(D)(1) requires a juvenile court determining a child’s best interest to consider all relevant factors, including every factor enumerated in the subsection.

In re S.P. · filed 2011-11-02(D)(1)

When determining whether a grant of permanent custody is in a child’s best interest, the juvenile court must consider all the relevant factors, including those enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1): the interaction and interrelationships of the child, the wishes of the child, the custodial history of the child, and the child’s need for permanence in her life. ... “Although the trial court is not precluded from considering other relevant factors, the statute explicitly requires the court to consider all of the enumerated factors.”

A court may terminate parental rights only upon clear and convincing evidence satisfying both the statutory placement prong and the child's best-interest prong, and only one best-interest factor under subsection (D) must favor permanent custody.

In re A.H. · filed 2011-12-15(D)

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, had been in the temporary custody of the agency for at least 12 months of the prior 22 months, or that the child could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414(E); and (2) the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414(D). ... This court has “consistently held that only one of the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D) needs to be resolved in favor of the award of permanent custody in order for the court to terminate parental rights.”

Under § 2151.414(D)(1), a child's bond with foster parents, custodial history, and need for a legally secure placement may support a finding that permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In re M.P. · filed 2011-12-09(D)(1)

The applicable statutory best interest factors support the court's determination. ... First, M.P. has bonded with her foster parents and their family. Further, her foster parents wish to adopt her. And appellant has not bonded with M.P. This could certainly be due to the fact that she has missed half of her scheduled visits. ... Second, at the time of the hearing, M.P. had been in appellee's temporary custody for almost 22 consecutive months. ... Third, both appellant's caseworker and M.P.'s GAL testified that M.P. is in need of a legally secure placement and that it is in her best interest that the court grant permanent custody to appellee.

Section 2151.414(D)(2) requires a court to grant permanent custody when all of that subsection’s requirements are met, but those requirements are not the only way to establish that permanent custody is in a child’s best interest.

In re K.M.D. · filed 2012-02-24(D)(2)

Under the plain language of the statute, if the requirements of R.C. 2151.414(D)(2) are satisfied, then the trial court must grant the permanent custody motion. That does not mean, however, that permanent custody is in a child’s best interest only if the requirements of R.C. 2151.414(D)(2) are satisfied. Thus, Father’s arguments that the trial court erred based on an inability to satisfy the requirements of R.C. 2151.414(D)(2) must fail.

Section 2151.414(D)'s best-interest factors supported awarding legal custody to an out-of-state paternal relative who could meet the child's medical needs and maintain his family relationships.

In re P.S. · filed 2012-07-16(D)

R. C. 2151.414(D) provides factors to be considered in making a best-interest-of-the-child determination: ... The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's parents, siblings, relatives, foster caregivers and out-of-home providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child; ... The child's need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to the agency; ... We find no abuse of discretion for the trial court to determine the preponderance of the evidence established it was in P.S.’s best interests to grant legal custody to the Arizona paternal relative and to terminate the involvement of SCDJFS.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) requires clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child's best interest, and Section 2151.414(D)(1) identifies the relevant best-interest factors.

In re K.J. · filed 2012-11-07(B)(1), (D)(1)

R.C. §2151.414(B)(1) enables a trial court to grant permanent custody if the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child. ... R.C. §2151.414(D)(1) sets out the factors relevant to determining the best interests of the child. Said section states relevant factors include, but are not limited to, the following: ... After independently reviewing the record, we agree with counsel's conclusion that no arguably meritorious claims exist upon which to base an appeal challenging the trial court's decision on best interests of the child.

When the twelve-of-twenty-two-month custody condition in Section 2151.414(B)(1) is undisputed, permanent custody turns on whether it is in the child’s best interest under Section 2151.414(D)(1).

In re J.W. · filed 2012-08-06(B)(1), (D)(1)

In the present case, neither party contests that J.W. has been in the agency’s temporary custody for at least 12 of a consecutive 22 month period. Consequently, the sole issue before this Court is whether granting the agency’s motion for permanent custody was in J.W.’s best interest. ... After reviewing the evidence, this Court cannot find that the juvenile court erred by determining granting the agency permanent custody of J.W. was in J.W.’s best interest.

Section 2151.414(D) requires a court determining a child's best interests to consider all relevant factors, including the child's relationships and wishes, custodial history, need for a legally secure placement, and specified statutory factors.

In re A.S. · filed 2013-02-01(D)

R.C. 2151.414(D) directs the trial court to consider all relevant factors when determining the best interest of the child, including but not limited to: (1) the interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's parents, relatives, foster parents and any other person who may significantly affect the child; (2) the wishes of the child; (3) the custodial history of the child, including whether 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; (4) the child's need ... for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to the agency; and (5) whether any of the factors in R.C. 2151.414(E)(7) through (11) are applicable.

Section 2151.414(D)(2) allows a child's wishes to be expressed through a guardian ad litem and permits the child's maturity to make direct consideration of those wishes inappropriate.

In re A.C. · filed 2013-04-12(D)(2)

{¶55} While appellant M.C. argues that the trial court erred in granting permanent custody to the agency because the trial court did not consider the wishes of the children as required by R.C, 2151.414(D)(b), at the hearing, the Guardian ad Litem testified that she did not discuss their wishes with the children because of their young ages. At the time of the hearing, the children were four, five and nearly six years old. This Court, in In the Matter of Turner, 5th Dist. No. 2006-CA-45, 2006-Ohio-45, indicted that the trial court could not consider the wishes of the children due to their ages. The children in Turner were eight, seven and three years old. Moreover, the Guardian ad Litem, in the case sub judice, did testify, that she had visited with the children 15 times and that she had interviewed the children at their foster home. She was subject to cross-examination at the November 27, 2012 hearing. The trial court, in its Journal Entry, found that the wishes of the children, as expressed through the Guardian ad Litem, was for permanent custody to be awarded. {¶56} Based on the foregoing, we find that the trial court did not err in finding that it was in the children’s best interest for permanent custody to be granted to GCCS.

Under subsection (D), evidence that children need a legally secure permanent placement unavailable without an agency grant, together with a parent's failure to provide consistent care, supervision, housing, and food, can support a best-interest finding for permanent custody.

In re R.M. · filed 2013-08-14(D)

R.C. 2151.414(D) requires a trial court to consider specific factors to determine whether a child’s best interests will be served by granting a children services agency permanent custody. ... The evidence demonstrates that the children need a legally secure permanent placement which they cannot achieve without a grant of permanent custody. ... Consequently, we believe that the foregoing facts constitute competent and credible evidence from which the trial court reasonably could have formed a firm belief that permanent custody would serve the children’s best interests. ... Thus, the trial court’s decision is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Under subsection (D), the harm from losing minimal parental bonds and reduced access to siblings may be outweighed by the benefits of permanency and stability when determining a child's best interest.

In re G.P. · filed 2013-10-21(D)

We find the trial court did not err in finding that granting permanent custody to SCDJFS is in the best interest of G.P., K.P., and L.P. As detailed above, Mother and Father failed to make significant progress on their case plans and failed to visit G.P., K.P., and L.P. While G.P., K.P., and L.P. will lose the minimal bond they have with Mother and Father and it will be more difficult for them to see their siblings in Wisconsin, this harm is outweighed by the benefits of permanency and stability. ... Based on the foregoing, we find the trial court properly considered and weighed the factors in R.C. 2151.414(D) and the trial court’s conclusion that the granting of permanent custody to SCDJFS is in the best interest of G.P., K.P., and L.P. is supported by competent and credible evidence.

When permanent custody is in the children's best interest under Section 2151.414(D), legal custody to a relative necessarily is not in their best interest.

In re K.T. · filed 2017-05-03(D)

Because the trial court’s decision whether to place the children in the legal custody of Grandmother was also based on the best interest of the children, “this Court typically conducts a single ‘best interest’ review of the trial court’s decision to place the child[ren] in the permanent custody of the agency rather than in the legal custody to a relative.” In re I.A., 9th Dist. Summit No. 26642, 2013-Ohio-360, ¶ 10, quoting In re T-G.M., 9th Dist. Summit No. 25858, 2011-Ohio-3940, ¶ 13. If permanent custody is in the children’s best interest, legal custody to Grandmother necessarily is not. “‘Consequently, this Court will review the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D) in reviewing the [best interest] decision of the trial court * * *.’” Id.

Section 2151.414(D)(1)'s permanent-custody best-interest factors guide a juvenile court deciding legal custody.

In re H.O. · filed 2019-03-27(D)(1)

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

Section 2151.414(D)(1)'s best-interest factors supported permanent custody where the children were bonded with each other in the same foster home, no suitable kinship placement existed, and the parent remained unable to address drug addiction.

In re G.K. · filed 2019-04-25(D)(1)

Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(D)(1), in determining the best interest of a child in a permanent custody proceeding, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the following: ... We find no error for the trial court to find it was in the best interest of the children to grant the permanent custody motion of GCCS.

Section 2151.414(D)(1)(d) asks whether permanent custody serves the child's best interest, not whether permanent custody guarantees eventual placement in a family setting.

In re W.J.T. · filed 2019-07-29(D)(1)(d)

However, while it is true there is no guarantee that W.T. will be placed in a family setting, the juvenile court was tasked to determine whether the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child, not whether a family placement was guaranteed.

Although legal custody has no mandatory statutory factor test, Section 2151.414(D)'s permanent-custody factors may be instructive in deciding a child's best interest for legal custody.

In re D.G.B. · filed 2019-09-05(D)

Although there is no “specific test or set of criteria” that must be followed in determining what is in a child’s best interest in a legal custody case, this court has held that the R.C. 2151.414(D) factors may be “instructive.”

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

In re A.M. · filed 2019-12-18(D)

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

Section 2151.414(D)(1)'s permanent-custody best-interest factors guide a juvenile court deciding legal custody.

In re J.J. · filed 2020-05-06(D)(1)

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

Section 2151.414(D)'s permanent-custody factors are instructive, but not mandatory predicates, when a court decides a legal-custody motion.

In re E.H. · filed 2020-05-06(D)

We must presume that, in the absence of best interest factors in a legal custody case, "the legislature did not intend to require the consideration of certain factors as a predicate for granting legal custody." ... Such factors, however, are instructive when making a determination as to the child's best interest.

Section 2151.414(D)(1)'s permanent-custody best-interest factors guide a juvenile court deciding legal custody.

In re K.G. · filed 2020-08-19(D)(1)

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

Section 2151.414(D)(1)'s permanent-custody best-interest factors guide a juvenile court deciding legal custody.

In re K.G. · filed 2020-08-20(D)(1)

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

Section 2151.414(D)(1) requires consideration of all relevant best-interest factors, including the children's placement history, relationships, wishes, and need for a secure permanent home.

In re C & M Children · filed 2020-08-26(D)(1)

After reviewing the record, we hold that the juvenile court’s finding that it was in the best interest of the children to grant permanent custody to HCJFS is supported by clear and convincing evidence.

For a medically fragile child, an unsafe and persistently unsanitary home may constitute clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In re K.L. · filed 2021-09-07(D)(1)

Given the foregoing, we conclude that, due to the severity of K.L.’s condition, which indisputably demands an extremely clean, if not immaculate, living environment as well as vigilant attentiveness to feeding and medication, there was clear and convincing evidence that awarding permanent custody to JFS was in the child’s best interest.

A legally secure permanent placement requires more than food, shelter, and clothing; it must provide an environment for nurturing and growth.

In re A.N. · filed 2021-12-02(D)(1)(d)

But the need for a legally secure permanent placement goes beyond mere tangible items; it requires an environment for nurturing and growth. ... Competent, credible evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that a permanent placement that fosters growth, stability, and security just cannot be achieved with Father.

A legally secure permanent placement requires more than physical shelter; it requires a stable home with dependable adults who will meet the child's needs.

In re C.H. · filed 2022-04-04(D)(1)(d)

‘A legally secure permanent placement is more than a house with four walls. Rather, it generally encompasses a stable environment where a child will live in safety with one or more dependable adults who will provide for the child’s needs.’ ... Ultimately, by failing to adequately remedy the conditions that resulted in C.H.’s removal from her home, Mother has not demonstrated she is capable of dependably providing for C.H.’s particularized needs in a stable environment.

When all four subsection (D)(2) conditions apply, permanent custody is necessarily in the child's best interest and the court must commit the child to the agency.

In re G.W. · filed 2022-07-28(D)(2)

Critically, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(D)(2), if all four factors enumerated thereunder apply, “permanent custody is in the best interest of the child, and the court shall commit the child to the permanent custody” of the agency. ... A finding under R.C. 2151.414(D)(2) mandates that the trial court find it is in the child’s best interest to be placed in the agency’s permanent custody.

A lack of court-ordered visitation does not preclude abandonment when the parent could have maintained contact through gifts, mail, or other means but chose not to do so.

In re J.N.L.H. · filed 2022-10-31(B)(1)(b)

Mother was not prohibited from otherwise maintaining contact with the child via gifts, mail correspondence, or other forms of contact outside of court-ordered visitation. Thus, despite her ability to do so, the record reflects Mother chose not to maintain any contact with her child throughout most of the case. Under these circumstances, we find no error in the juvenile court's determination that the child was abandoned as contemplated by R.C. 2151.011(C) and 2151.414(B)(1)(b).

A lengthy temporary placement and a parent's failure to cooperate or provide a safe home can support a finding that stability requires permanent custody.

In re U.G. · filed 2022-11-02(D)(1)(d)

This case had been pending for nearly three years, during which the children had lived in a temporary placement with Aunt. They needed stability, which could be achieved by granting permanent custody to CSB. Mother had failed to cooperate with CSB or demonstrate that she was able to provide the children with a safe and stable home.

A legally secure placement requires more than shelter; it encompasses a stable, safe environment with dependable adults who meet the child’s needs.

In re E.H. · filed 2022-12-28(D)(1)(d)

A legally secure placement refers to more than just a ... roof over one’s head, rather, a legally secure placement, “ ‘encompasses a stable environment where a child will live in safety with one or more dependable adults who will provide for the child’s needs.’ ”

When every subsection (D)(2) condition applies, permanent custody is per se in the child's best interest and the court must commit the child to the agency.

In re T.Y. · filed 2023-02-02(D)(2)

Significantly, if the factors enumerated under R.C. 2151.414(D)(2) are applicable, permanent custody is per se in the child’s best interest and the juvenile court is required to commit the child to the permanent custody of the agency.

Section 2151.414(D) requires clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In Re J.G. D.G., Unpublished Decision (5-19-2004) · filed 2004-05-19(D)

To satisfy the best interest prong of the permanent custody test, CSB was required to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, 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(D) requires the court to consider all relevant factors when deciding whether permanent custody is in a child's best interest.

In Re R.N., Unpublished Decision (5-20-2004) · filed 2004-05-20(D)

In determining the best interest of the child, the court must consider all relevant factors including, but not limited to, those contained in R.C. 2151.414 (D). ... We find that more than one of the factors listed under R.C. 2151.414 (D) exist and that the trial court clearly did not abuse its discretion by determining permanent custody to be in R.N.'s best interest.

Section 2151.414(D) requires a court deciding permanent custody to consider all relevant factors, including five statutory criteria, when determining a child's best interests.

In the Matter of Hollon, Unpublished Decision (5-27-2004) · filed 2004-05-27(D)

R.C. § 2151.414 (D) requires a trial court to consider all relevant factors including, but not limited to, five specific statutory criteria to determine the best interests of a minor child in permanent custody proceedings.

A child's long-term placement with grandparents who have adopted a sibling can support a best-interest finding under § 2151.414(D).

In Re Jesse P., Unpublished Decision (7-16-2004) · filed 2004-07-16(D)

Further, under R.C. 2151.414 (D), the court has demonstrated that it is in Jesse and Jay's best interests to be adopted by their maternal grandparents who have already adopted a younger sibling and with whom they have lived since 1998.

Section 2151.414(D) makes a child's relationships and need for a legally secure placement relevant to the best-interest decision in a permanent custody case.

In the Matter of Keen, Unpublished Decision (8-9-2004) · filed 2004-08-09(D)

R.C. 2151.414 (D) sets out the factors relevant to determining the best interests of the child. ... We find the evidence to be substantial and credible that it is in the child's best interest to be provided with a stable home environment which is available through permanent custody.

Section 2151.414(D) requires a court to consider the listed factors when deciding by clear and convincing evidence whether permanent custody is in a child's best interest.

In Re Carr, Unpublished Decision (11-15-2004) · filed 2004-11-15(D)

R.C. 2151.414 (D) sets forth the factors a court must consider in finding by clear and convincing evidence an award of permanent custody is in the children's best interest. ... We have reviewed the record, and we find there is sufficient, competent and credible evidence to permit the trial court to make these findings by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 2151.414(D) requires the court to consider the child's best interests when deciding whether to grant permanent custody to an agency.

In re X.L. · filed 2014-03-24(D)

The trial court determined it was in the best interest of the child to be placed in the permanent custody of the Agency pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(D), and we agree.

Section 2151.414(D)(1) requires courts deciding a child’s best interest for permanent custody to consider the child’s relationships, wishes, custodial history, need for permanence, and any applicable factors in (E)(7)-(11).

In re Z.K. · filed 2019-12-11(D)(1)

The best interest factors include: the interaction and interrelationships of the child, the wishes of the child, the custodial history of the child, the child’s need for permanence and whether that can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody, and whether any of the factors outlined in R.C. 2151.414(E)(7)-(11) apply.

Section 2151.414(D)(1) requires the court to consider the child's best-interest factors when deciding permanent custody.

In re R.M. · filed 2019-12-11(D)(1)

It is clear from the trial court’s judgment entry that it considered the best interest factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1).

Section 2151.414(A)(1) requires a best-interest determination before an agency receives permanent custody of a child.

In the Matter of Kilby, Unpublished Decision (4-28-2003) · filed 2003-04-28(A)(1)

When a state agency moves for permanent custody, the trial court is required, in part, to determine "if it is in the best interest of the child to permanently terminate parental rights and grant permanent custody to the agency that filed the motion." R.C. 2151.414 (A)(1). ... Upon examination of the record, we find that the trial court's determination that it is in the best interest of Sarah to be permanently placed in the custody of BCCSB is supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) requires a best-interest determination before a court grants permanent custody to an agency.

In Re Dulaney, Unpublished Decision (2-6-2006) · filed 2006-02-06(B)(1)

Based upon the testimony produced at trial, we find that the record clearly support's the court's determination that the best interests of Jason and the inability of Appellant to cope with his needs, and that of her own, warranted the grant of permanent custody to Appellee.

In assessing a child’s best interest under Section 2151.414(D), the court considers the child’s need for a legally secure permanent placement.

In re D.T. · filed 2017-02-21(D)

The evidence fully supported the trial court’s conclusion that a legally secure permanent placement could only be achieved by placing the children in the permanent custody of LCCS.

Section 2151.414(D) requires a court deciding permanent custody to consider all relevant factors bearing on the child's best interest.

In re N.D. · filed 2020-06-05(D)

We conclude the juvenile court properly weighed the pertinent factors in R.C. 2151.414(D) and (E) and reasonably found, by clear and convincing evidence, that granting permanent custody to MCCS was in the child's best interest.

Section 2151.414(D)(1) makes a child’s relationships and placement history relevant to the permanent custody best interest determination.

In re K.G. · filed 2020-12-17(D)(1)

The evidence establishes for the “best interest” purposes of R.C. 2151.414(D)(1), that the children have bonded with the foster family and siblings and have resided with the family for 18 months.

Section 2151.414(D)(1)(d) requires the court to consider whether a legally secure permanent placement can be achieved without granting permanent custody to the agency.

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

Further, the Revised Code requires the trial court to consider whether “a legally secure permanent placement * * * can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to the agency[.]” R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(d). ... Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the best interests of the children supported placing the children in the permanent custody of the Agency.

Section 2151.414 requires a permanent custody award to serve the child’s best interest; a proposed legal custodian’s repeated refusal to meet placement requirements can support that finding.

In re A.S. · filed 2022-08-04(B)(1)

Regarding the second prong of R.C. 2151.414 — the award of permanent custody is in the children’s best interest — Mother contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in making this finding because “it failed to undertake a meaningful review of the evidence from the hearing.” Again, Mother contends that this court should allow S.S. “the opportunity to step in.” Again, we disagree. The record is quite clear that S.S. has had ample opportunity to “step in” and obtain legal custody of the minor children. She has repeatedly declined to comply with the legal requirements necessary for her to do so. Accordingly, S.S.’s inactions and refusal to cooperate with the agency and the juvenile court warrants the conclusion that awarding her legal custody of the minor children is not in their best interests.

Section 2151.414(D)’s best interest factors may guide a juvenile court deciding legal custody.

In re D.H. · filed 2023-05-11(D)

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

Section 2151.414(D)’s best-interest inquiry allows the court to consider a parent’s lack of involvement and the child’s bond with a foster family.

In re Z.C. · filed 2024-03-04(D)

In this case, Father’s actions while the children were in the custody of ACCSB support the juvenile court’s conclusion that permanent placement was in Z.C.’s best interest. ... On the other hand, Z.C. has been with his foster family and half-brother since March of 2020 and is closely bonded with them.

Section 2151.414(D)(1) requires a court deciding permanent custody to consider all relevant factors bearing on the child’s best interest, including the listed factors.

In re De.R. · filed 2024-03-29(D)(1)

In conducting the best interest analysis, “R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) requires that a court consider all relevant factors, including those delineated in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a) through (e).” ... The record demonstrates that the juvenile court properly considered the relevant statutory factors and weighed the factors to find it is in the best interest of De.R., Di.R., and Da.R. to be placed in the permanent custody of HCJFS.

Section 2151.414(D) requires courts deciding permanent custody to consider all relevant best-interest factors, including the child’s need for a legally secure permanent placement.

In re L.G. · filed 2025-08-05(D)

R.C. 2151.414(D) directs a trial court to consider “all relevant factors,” as well as specific factors, to determine whether a child’s best interest will be served by granting a children services agency permanent custody. ... In the case before us, clear and convincing evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the child needs a legally secure permanent placement and that he can only achieve this type of placement by granting the agency permanent custody.

Section 2151.414(D) requires the court to consider and weigh the relevant best-interest factors; a parent's lack of participation does not prevent that review when the record contains sufficient evidence.

In re A.M. · filed 2026-05-28(D)

We find the trial court properly considered and weighed the factors in R.C. 2151.414(D) and the trial court’s conclusion that the granting of permanent custody to TCJFS is in the best interest of the child is supported by competent and credible evidence.

Section 2151.414(D) requires courts deciding a child’s best interests for permanent custody to consider all relevant factors, including the child’s relationships, wishes, custodial history, and need for permanence.

In re S.P. · filed 2014-09-03(D)

When determining whether a grant of permanent custody is in the children’s best interest, the juvenile court must consider all the relevant factors, including those enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(D): the interaction and interrelationships of the children, the wishes of the children, the custodial history of the children, and the children’s need for permanence in their lives.

Section 2151.414(D) requires a court deciding a child’s best interest to consider all relevant factors, including the child’s relationships, wishes, custodial history, and need for permanence.

In re C.B. · filed 2014-10-20(D)

When determining whether a grant of permanent custody is in the child’s best interest, the juvenile court must consider all the relevant factors, including those enumerated in Revised Code Section 2151.414(D): the interaction and interrelationships of the child, the wishes of the child, the custodial history of the child, and the child’s need for permanence in her life.

Section 2151.414(D) requires a juvenile court deciding a child’s best interest to consider all relevant factors, including the child’s relationships, wishes, custodial history, and need for permanence.

In re J.M. · filed 2017-03-22(D)

When determining the child’s best interest under R.C. 2151.414(D), the juvenile court must consider all relevant factors, including the interaction and interrelationships of the child, his wishes, the custodial history of the child, and his need for permanence in his life.

Section 2151.414(D) requires the court to consider all relevant factors when deciding a child's best interest at a permanent custody hearing.

In re A.K. · filed 2011-02-14(D)

In determining the best interest of the child at a permanent custody hearing, R.C. 2151.414(D) mandates the trial court must consider all relevant factors, ... including, but not limited to, the following: (1) the interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's parents, siblings, relatives, foster parents and out-of-home providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child; (2) the wishes of the child as expressed directly by the child or through the child's guardian ad litem, with due regard for the maturity of the child; (3) the custodial history of the child; and (4) the child's need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody.

Section 2151.414(D) requires courts deciding a child's best interests at a permanent custody hearing to consider all relevant factors, including the child's relationships, wishes, custodial history, and need for a legally secure placement.

In re S. Children · filed 2012-12-31(D)

In determining the best interest of the child at a permanent custody hearing, R.C. 2151.414(D) mandates the trial court must consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) the interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's parents, siblings, relatives, foster parents and out-of-home providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child; (2) the wishes of the child as expressed directly by the child or through the child's guardian ad litem, with due regard for the maturity of the child; (3) the custodial history of the child; and (4) the ... child's need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody.

Section 2151.414(D) requires the juvenile court to consider every enumerated best-interest factor while permitting consideration of additional relevant factors.

In Re J.O., Unpublished Decision (4-28-2004) · filed 2004-04-28(D)

"Although the trial court is not precluded from considering other relevant factors, the statute explicitly requires the court to consider all of the enumerated factors." In re Smith, 9th Dist. No. 20711, 2002-Ohio-34; see, also, In re Palladino, 11th Dist. No. 2002-G-2445, 2002-Ohio-5606, at ¶ 24. ... The trial court had ample evidence before it that permanent custody to CSB was in the best interests of J.O. and F.O.

A prior sibling termination need not be the sole basis for a cannot-be-placed finding when continuing mental illness, heroin addiction, incomplete treatment, missing drug screens, and unremedied parenting problems establish additional factors.

In re A.J.M. · filed 2018-11-01(E)(1), (E)(2), (E)(11)

Contrary to Mother’s argument that Mother had her parental rights involuntarily terminated with respect to a sibling of the child, that was not the entire basis for the trial court’s determination. Rather, it was one of several factors considered by the trial court. Further, there was competent, credible evidence in the record to support the trial court’s findings. ... Although Mother did engage in some case plan services and had appropriate visits with the child, she failed to substantially remedy her substance abuse problems and mental health issues. Our review of the record demonstrates that there is competent, credible evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent.

Section 2151.414(E) requires a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time when clear and convincing evidence establishes any one of its enumerated factors.

In Re J.S. · filed 2004-05-06(E)

When a juvenile court finds by clear-and-convincing evidence that one of the enumerated factors in R.C. 2151.414(E) is present, the court must, as in the instant case, conclude that the child cannot be placed within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parent.

Section 2151.414(E) requires clear and convincing evidence that one or more listed parental conditions exists as to each of the child's parents before permanent custody may be granted on reasonable-time placement grounds.

In Re Lauren P., Unpublished Decision (3-31-2004) · filed 2004-03-31(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) exists as to each of the child's parents.

Section 2151.414(E) directs the trial court to consider the statutory factors in deciding whether a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with that parent.

In Re Greathouse, Unpublished Decision (5-12-2005) · filed 2005-05-12(E)

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

Section 2151.414(E) requires only one enumerated factor to find that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent, and findings under (E)(4) or (14) require parental unwillingness rather than mere inability to provide an adequate permanent home and basic necessities.

In Re Carlos R., Unpublished Decision (11-30-2007) · filed 2007-11-30(E)(1), (E)(4), (E)(14)

Only an unwillingness suffices as an adequate reason for making a finding under R.C. 2151.414 (E)(4) and/or (14). ... Upon a review of the record, we find that there was clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's findings under R.C. 2151.414 (E)(4) and (14) that appellant was unwilling to provide an adequate permanent home for Carlos III. ... Accordingly, the court erred in making an R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) finding with regard to appellant. Nevertheless, because a court need only find one factor under R.C. 2151.414 (E) to support a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent, and because there was clear and convincing evidence to support the court's findings under R.C. 2151.414 (E)(4) and (14), the court's finding in this regard was harmless.

Section 2151.414(E) requires only one listed factor as to each parent before the court must find that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent.

In Matter of Robinson, 1-08-24 (10-14-2008) · filed 2008-10-14(E)

{¶ 19} Second, with regard to the number of factors required to be found under R.C. 2151.414 (E), this Court has stated that "given the plain language of the statute, the trial court only needs to find one of the factors listed in (E) as to each parent before it `shall' render a finding that a child cannot be placed with either parent." In re Matthews , 3d Dist. Nos. 9-07-28, 9-07-29, 9-07-34, 2008-Ohio-276 , ¶ 26 (emphasis in original). Here, the trial court found that (E)(2), (E)(4), and (E)(11) existed. After reviewing the record, we find that there is sufficient evidence to support each of those findings.

When determining whether Section 2151.414(B)(1)(a) applies, the court must consider the factors in Section 2151.414(E).

In re A.F. · filed 2012-03-19(B)(1)(a), (E)

In determining whether R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) applies, the trial court must consider the factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(E).

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(b)'s abandonment ground remains satisfied after a parent has no contact for at least ninety consecutive days, even if the parent later resumes visits.

In re L.M. · filed 2020-09-16(B)(1)(b)

Despite the October and November visits, Mother previously failed to have any contact with the child for at least 90 consecutive days prior to the agency’s filing ... of its permanent custody motion.

Section 2151.414(E) permits a court to find that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent when one or more of its listed conditions is established.

In Re Anderson, Unpublished Decision (9-30-2004) · filed 2004-09-30(E)

However, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (E), the court may determine that Ashley could not be placed with appellant within a reasonable time or should not be so placed by finding one or more of the conditions enumerated in R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) through (16). Here the court found three conditions which were supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 2151.414(E) requires the agency to prove by clear and convincing evidence that at least one listed condition exists as to each parent before the court finds that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

In Re Smallwood, Unpublished Decision (1-26-1998) · filed 1998-01-26(E)

At a hearing on the motion, the agency must offer clear and convincing evidence to establish that one or more of the conditions listed in R.C. 2151.414 (E) exists as to each of the child's parents.

Section 2151.414(E) requires a court deciding whether a child can be placed with a parent within a reasonable time to consider all relevant evidence and find at least one listed condition by clear and convincing evidence.

In the Matter of Colbert, Unpublished Decision (11-9-2000) · filed 2000-11-09(E)

R.C. 2151.414 (E) provides that, in determining whether a child can be placed with her parents within a reasonable time, a trial court shall consider all relevant evidence and must determine, by clear and convincing evidence, that one or more of several enumerated conditions exist.

Section 2151.414(E) requires clear and convincing evidence that a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent before permanent custody may be awarded on that ground.

In Re M.W., Unpublished Decision (2-4-2004) · filed 2004-02-04(E)

Before a juvenile court can terminate parental rights and award to a proper moving agency permanent custody of a child, it must find clear and convincing evidence of both prongs of the permanent custody test: (1) that the child is abandoned, orphaned, has been in the temporary custody of the agency for at least twelve of the prior twenty-two months, or that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414 (E); and (2) the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414 (D). ... Upon careful review of the record, this Court finds that the weight of the evidence fails to clearly and convincingly support a finding that the child cannot be placed with Erin within a reasonable time or should not be placed with her.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) permits a finding that a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time when the parent has not remedied the conditions that caused removal, despite progress on other parts of a case plan.

In re H.F. · filed 2014-09-08(E)(1)

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

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(a) permits a finding that a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time when the parent is imprisoned for life without parole.

In re J.B. · filed 2016-01-28(B)(1)(a)

Whether a child could not or should not be returned to a parent within a reasonable time is a factor under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a). Here, the court found that appellant will not be available to care for J.B. for at least 18 months because appellant is incarcerated for life on a murder charge with no possibility of parole. Based on our review of the record, this finding is supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 2151.414(E) requires the court to consider all relevant evidence and find that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent if clear and convincing evidence establishes any one enumerated factor.

In re D.E. · filed 2016-03-31(E)

R.C. 2151.414(E) requires a trial court to “consider all relevant evidence” when determining whether a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with either parent. The statute further directs a court to find that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent if clear and convincing evidence shows the existence of any one of the enumerated factors.

Section 2151.414(E)(1)'s failure-to-remedy factor may be established even without relying on a disputed counseling requirement when the agency provided extensive other reunification services and the underlying medical, safety, and parenting problems persisted.

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

The record in this matter is replete with evidence establishing that the Licking County Department of Job and Family Services made reasonable efforts, independent of requiring appellant to undergo sex offender counseling, to eliminate the continued removal of Loretta and Jason from appellant and to reunite appellant and her two children. The Department developed a case plan which outlined a specific plan of reunification. As part of her case plan, appellant received help with budgeting, with parenting, and with life skills. Appellant also received assistance with meeting the special needs of her children. Based on the foregoing, we concur with appellee that even setting aside appellant's counseling, "given the amount of services offered to the Appellants, the amount of time the children were in care, their special needs, and the lack of progress as a whole on the part of the Appellants it is clear the Agency made reasonable efforts to reunify the family." ... Thus, there was competent and credible evidence that appellant had failed to remedy the problems that initially caused the children to be removed from the home.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) does not itself require reasonable case planning and diligent reunification efforts; it directs a finding that a child cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable time when the agency makes such efforts and the parent fails to substantially remedy the conditions that caused removal.

In Re A.D., Unpublished Decision (9-30-2005) · filed 2005-09-30(E)(1)

{¶ 16} Appellant's argument is without merit. It appears that Appellant is relying upon the language of R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1). However, R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) does not require the agency to use "reasonable case planning and diligent efforts" to reunify the family, but rather addresses those efforts within the context of a parent's failure to remedy the circumstances causing the child's removal from the home. In re Thompson (Jan. 10, 2001), 9th Dist. No. 20201, at *17. Moreover, R.C. 2151.414 (E) and R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1), read together, indicate that if the agency conducts "reasonable case planning and diligent efforts" to assist the parents in resolving the conditions which caused the initial removal of the children and the parents fail to substantially remedy those conditions, then the court is required to find that the child cannot be placed with the parents within a reasonable time. See R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a).

Section 2151.414(E)(1)'s requirement of reasonable case planning and diligent agency efforts necessitates having a case plan in effect for a parent while the agency and parent are attempting reunification.

In Re C.F., Unpublished Decision (1-12-2006) · filed 2006-01-12(E)(1)

Upon review, we find appellant's argument that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that CCDCFS used reasonable efforts to reunify appellant with the children persuasive. The two case plans which included appellant (i.e., the January 20, 2004 and December 9, 2004 plans) were developed after CCDCFS filed its motion for permanent custody and was pursuing same. Thus, while appellant and CCDCFS were attempting reunification, there was no case plan in effect for him. We find that reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by CCDCFS would have necessitated a case plan for appellant during the time he was in the process of reunifying with the children.

Section 2151.414(E) does not require an agency to provide more intensive reunification services when it offered reasonable referrals and the parent repeatedly failed or refused to participate in them.

In Re D.B., Unpublished Decision (2-8-2006) · filed 2006-02-08(E)

LCCS is obligated to provide clients with reasonable case planning opportunities, but the client has a corresponding obligation to make an effort to attend and attentively participate in recommended programs. The client cannot sit idly by for months at a time, refusing to participate, and then fairly claim that the agency has failed her. ... The record indicates that LCCS addressed all three components of the case plan by offering numerous referrals and opportunities to appellant, and that appellant repeatedly responded by missing appointments, refusing to participate, refusing drug screens, and failing to participate actively when she was present. Accordingly, appellant's assignment of error is without merit.

When Section 2151.414(E)(1) is the sole predicate for permanent custody, the court may find that a child cannot or should not be returned only if the parent's failure to remedy the conditions causing removal occurred despite reasonable case planning and diligent agency efforts.

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

Where the trial court has relied solely upon R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) in satisfaction of the first prong of the permanent custody test, as here, the trial court is required to find that the child cannot or should not be returned to either parent because the parent failed to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the home "notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents[.]" ... Christopher has failed to demonstrate that CSB did not make reasonable efforts in case planning and diligent efforts toward reunification, or that the trial court erred in denying his motion to vacate the finding of reasonable efforts.

A lack of reasonable case-planning efforts is reversible only when permanent custody is based on Section 2151.414(E)(1), not when an independently supported abandonment finding satisfies the first prong.

In Re M.R., Unpublished Decision (5-24-2006) · filed 2006-05-24(E)(1)

A lack of reasonable case planning effort will be reversible error, however, only if the trial court's order of permanent custody had been based on R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1), which requires the trial court to find that the child cannot or should not be returned to either parent because the parent failed to substantially remedy the conditions causing the child to be placed outside the home "notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents[.]" ... Consequently, so long as the finding of abandonment was supported by the evidence, Mother cannot establish reversible error based on a lack of reasonable case planning efforts.

Section 2151.414(E)(1)'s reasonable-case-planning-and-diligent-efforts requirement is satisfied when the agency considers and rejects an unsuitable relative placement early in the case and the relative fails to express interest before trial.

In Re C.C., Unpublished Decision (1-30-2007) · filed 2007-01-30(E)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) requires the court to consider whether the parents substantially remedied the conditions that initially caused the child's placement, "notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially caused the child to be placed outside the home[.]" Given appellee's consideration and rejection of the maternal grandmother as a suitable placement at the beginning of the case planning process, as well as the maternal grandmother's failure to express an interest at any time prior to trial, we agree with the trial court's conclusion that appellee's efforts were reasonable and diligent.

Section 2151.414(E)(1)'s reasonable-case-planning requirement concerns agency efforts to help parents remedy the problems that caused removal, not efforts to unify the children with a relative.

In Re Avon Children, Unpublished Decision (3-23-2007) · filed 2007-03-23(E)(1)

{¶ 21} The appellant asserts that TCJFS never used reasonable case planning to assist these children in unification with the Smiths (paternal aunt and her husband). But, we find that reasonable case planning, as used in 2151.414 (E)(1), does not mean reasonable case planning to assist the children. It appears to mean reasonable case planning to assist the parents with their problems.

Section 2151.414(E)(1) treats reasonable case planning and diligent agency efforts as context for deciding whether a parent repeatedly failed to remedy the conditions causing removal; it does not require the agency to prove reasonable and diligent reunification efforts or provide the best possible treatment regardless of cost.

In Matter of gordon/gibb Children, 2006 Ap 12 0072 (5-18-2007) · filed 2007-05-18(E)(1)

However, as indicated above, R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) actually refers to `reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency[,]' within the context of the parent's failure to remedy the circumstances causing the child's removal from the home. See In re Miller , Licking App. No. 04 CA 32, 2005-Ohio-856 , ¶ 22 , quoting In re Danella , Summit App. No. 20663, 2002-Ohio-141, (additional citations omitted). Thus, "`R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) places no duty on the agency to prove that it exerted reasonable and diligent efforts toward reunification.'" Id. ... We nonetheless must recognize that" * * * R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) does not mandate that a public children's services agency provide the best possible treatment regardless of cost."

Section 2151.414(E)(1)'s requirement that the agency use reasonable case planning and diligent efforts applies only to that statutory ground, so other findings under Section 2151.414(E) may establish that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent without proof of those efforts.

In Re N. P., Unpublished Decision (11-7-2007) · filed 2007-11-07(E)(1)

Second, a finding of "reasonable case planning and diligent efforts" by the agency is relevant to only one of several alternative findings available to the trial court on the first prong of the permanent custody test. See R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1). In addition to finding that the parents failed to remedy the conditions that brought the children into care despite "the reasonable case planning and diligent efforts" by the agency, the trial court made several other findings which compel the same determination, i.e., that the children cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with a parent. See R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a) and R.C. 2151.414 (E). Those additional findings do not require the court to consider whether the agency used "reasonable case planning and diligent efforts."

When deciding whether a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent, the court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the agency provided reasonable case planning and diligent efforts to remedy the problems that initially caused the child's out-of-home placement.

In Re Shelby G., L-07-1390 (9-4-2008) · filed 2008-09-04(E)

In determining pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (E) whether a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with a parent, the court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the agency provided "reasonable case planning and diligent efforts" to remedy the problems that initially caused the child to be placed outside the home.

Subsection (E)(1) requires the court to examine an agency’s reasonable case planning and diligent efforts to assist the parents when deciding whether a child cannot or should not be returned to a parent within a reasonable time; this inquiry is distinct from requiring a reasonable-efforts finding at every permanent-custody hearing.

In re J.M. · filed 2012-10-08(E)(1)

One particular section, R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), does require the court to examine the “reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents” when determining whether a child should not or could not be returned to a parent within a reasonable time. This requirement and examination should not be confused with the reasonable efforts requirement as set forth by R.C. 2151.419 as requiring the trial court to determine reasonable efforts at every permanent custody motion brought under R .C. 2151.413 or 2151.414.

A referral to a metropolitan housing authority can constitute the reasonable case planning and diligent agency efforts required by § 2151.414(E)(1) to help parents remedy unsuitable housing.

In re L.G. · filed 2016-09-21(E)(1)

R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) requires “reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents” as part of a determination of whether the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parents. After our review of the record, we find that there is some competent, credible evidence supporting the trial court’s inferred finding that the housing authority referral constitutes reasonable case planning and diligent efforts on behalf of the Department.

When a permanent-custody award relies on subsection (E)(1), the court must examine the agency’s reasonable case planning and diligent efforts to help the parents.

In re J.H. · filed 2017-08-03(E)(1)

Further, where, as here, the juvenile court relies on R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) to support an award of permanent custody to the agency, the court must examine the “reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents” when considering whether the child cannot be placed with the parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parents.

Subsection (E)(1) requires reasonable case planning and diligent, good-faith services reasonably calculated to reunify the family, along with a reasonable time for the parent to pursue the goals.

In re K.J. · filed 2019-01-16(E)(1)

R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) requires that children services agencies engage in reasonable case planning and diligent efforts to remedy the concerns at issue. In addition to setting appropriate case plan goals for parents engaged in custody actions, children services agencies must, in good faith, provide services and engage in efforts that are reasonable calculated to succeed in reunifying parents and their children. ... In addition, it is fundamental that parents must be afforded a reasonable amount of time to accomplish their goals.

When relying on subsection (E)(1), the court must examine the agency's reasonable case planning and diligent reunification efforts as part of deciding parental placement.

In re A.F. · filed 2022-12-19(E)(1)

To the extent that the trial court relies on 2151.414(E)(1) at a permanent custody hearing, the court must examine the reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the parents' when considering whether the child cannot and should not be placed with the parent within a reasonable time.

Repeated unsuccessful substance-abuse treatment, positive drug screens, withheld releases, and continued involvement in domestic violence may establish both failure to remedy and severe chemical dependency.

In re J.G. · filed 2018-09-28(E)(1), (E)(2)

The foregoing testimony provided at the hearing on LCCS’s motion for permanent custody establishes that appellant has failed to address the issues that prompted the removal of the children from appellant’s home. Appellant’s unsuccessful discharge from numerous substance abuse programs, her refusal to provide the necessary releases to allow LCCS to track her case plan progress, and her positive urine screens, demonstrate that appellant has not remedied her substance abuse issues. Moreover, appellant’s continued involvement with M.W. demonstrates that she has not taken seriously the domestic violence issues. ... In sum, we find that the juvenile court’s finding that appellant has failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the children to be placed outside the home under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) is supported by the evidence. Likewise, we conclude that the court appropriately found that appellant’s chemical dependency is so severe that it makes her unable to provide an adequate permanent home for the children at the present time and within one year under R.C. 2151.414(E)(2).

Continued positive opiate tests and apparent intoxication after completing treatment may establish both failure to remedy substance abuse and chemical dependency severe enough to prevent an adequate permanent home.

In re O.T. · filed 2018-04-25(E)(1), (E)(2)

However, the record demonstrates that after mother completed the substance abuse services in December 2015, she tested positive for opiates in March 2016. Mother has not provided a prescription that covers March 2016. In addition, the testimony reveals that mother appeared to be under the influence at a visitation in February 2017, and while she was testifying at the hearing in May 2017. The test results taken after the May 30, 2017 hearing confirmed that mother had very high levels of oxycodone, noroxycodone, and oxymorphine. We also agree with the trial court that mother’s 2017 prescription list is “suspicious” given that her address is listed in Michigan even though she lives in Toledo, the prescription is filled in Ypsilanti, Michigan, and that the pharmacy would deliver the prescriptions for opiates an hour away and not require identification upon delivery. Therefore, we hold that the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) and (2) are not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Section 2151.414(E)(2) requires the court to consider whether a parent's chronic chemical dependency is so severe that the parent cannot provide an adequate permanent home at present or within one year after the custody hearing.

In Re Marano, Unpublished Decision (12-9-2004) · filed 2004-12-09(E)(2)

R.C. 2151.414 (E)(2) directs the court to consider the "[c]hronic mental illness, emotional illness, * * * 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 * * *."...Based upon the foregoing, we find that the record contains some competent, credible evidence to support the trial court's finding that Clark's alcohol dependency 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 after the custody hearing.

Clear and convincing evidence of severe parental chemical dependency and another relevant factor supports a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with that parent within a reasonable time.

In re I.M. · filed 2011-01-28(E)(2) and (E)(16)

As such, the court had clear and convincing evidence to determine that, under 2151.414(E)(2) and (E)(16), I.M. should not or could not be placed with McClelland in a reasonable time.

A long-standing opiate addiction, prior removal of other children for failure to maintain sobriety, a second felony drug conviction, and late-pregnancy drug use can establish inability to provide an adequate home within one year under Section 2151.414(E)(2).

In re B.R. · filed 2015-01-28(E)(2)

Upon our consideration of the record, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that mother would be unable to provide an adequate permanent home for B.R. within one year of the hearing. Therefore, we hold that the trial court’s decision is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Section 2151.414(E)(2) permits a finding that a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time when clear and convincing evidence shows that the parent’s severe chemical dependency prevents an adequate permanent home.

In re Maj.A. · filed 2018-02-13(E)(2)

We disagree and conclude that the court’s finding as to mother under R.C. 2151.414(E)(2) was supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) permits a court to grant permanent custody only upon clear and convincing evidence that doing so is in the child's best interest and that one of the subsection's enumerated circumstances applies.

In Re shahan/ramey Children, Unpublished Decision (12-16-2004) · filed 2004-12-16(B)(1)

{¶ 30} Ohio Revised Code Section 2151.414 (B)(1), addresses under what circumstances a trial court may grant permanent custody. That statute provides as follows: {¶ 31} "(B)(1) Except as provided in division (B)(2) of this section, the court may grant permanent custody of a child to a movant if the court determines at the hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this section, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody of the child to the agency that filed the motion for permanent custody and that any of the following apply: {¶ 32} "(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. {¶ 33} "(b) The child is abandoned. {¶ 34} "(c) The child is orphaned, and there are no relatives of the child who are able to take permanent custody. {¶ 35} "(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." ... {¶ 51} Upon review, we find that the trial court had clear and convincing evidence before it to grant the SCDJFS permanent custody of the children.

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence of both one enumerated ground for permanent custody and that permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In Re Perry, Unpublished Decision (11-6-2006) · filed 2006-11-06(B)(1), (D)

R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1) requires a trial court to conduct a two-pronged analysis to determine whether to grant permanent custody of a child to a children services agency. In that analysis, the court must first determine by clear and convincing evidence that any one of the factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a)-(d) exists. ... Then the court must determine by clear and convincing evidence that an award of permanent custody to the agency is in the child's best interest.