Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2151.414

Section 2151.414 governs a permanent-custody motion filed by a child's guardian ad litem.

In re B.M. · filed 2025-05-19

We therefore conclude that a permanent-custody motion that is filed by a guardian ad litem is governed by R.C. 2151.414.

A permanent-custody motion filed by a guardian ad litem is governed by section 2151.414.

In re P.J.M. · filed 2025-06-16

Therefore, a permanent custody motion filed by a guardian ad litem is governed by R.C. 2151.414.

Section 2151.414(D) does not require a juvenile court to expressly discuss each best-interest factor in its judgment entry if competent, credible evidence shows that it considered and applied those factors.

In Re Erich L., Unpublished Decision (6-10-2005) · filed 2005-06-10(D)

We have previously held that R.C. 2151.414 (D) does not require a juvenile court to express consideration of those factors in its judgment entry. ... To reiterate, as long as some competent credible evidence exists to support a conclusion that the trial court considered and applied those factors, its determination will not be disturbed on appeal.

Section 2151.414(D) requires the juvenile court to consider every enumerated best-interest factor, although it may also consider other relevant factors.

In Re C.B., Unpublished Decision (8-24-2005) · filed 2005-08-24(D)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.

Section 2151.414(D) requires the court to consider every listed best-interest factor, but the court need not discuss each factor on the record, and only one factor need favor permanent custody.

In the Matter of J.B., Unpublished Decision (9-15-2005) · filed 2005-09-15(D)

While the trial court must consider each of the R.C. 2151.414 (D) factors, it need not discuss its consideration of each factor on the record. ... Only one of the R.C. 2151.414 (D) factors need be resolved in favor of the award of permanent custody.

Section 2151.414(D) requires consideration of all relevant best-interest factors and permits permanent custody where the children are stable and bonded in foster care, have an uncertain bond with the parent, are adoptable, and lack a viable relative placement.

In Re Peterson, Unpublished Decision (3-27-2006) · filed 2006-03-27(D)

In determining the best interest of a child at a permanent custody hearing, R.C. 2151.414 (D) mandates that 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; (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; and 5) whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of R.C. 2151.414 apply in relation to the parents and child. ... We find that the trial court's decision to grant permanent custody to the agency is supported by competent, credible evidence. ... Ms. Moore opined that the children are bonded to their current placement. The children's bond with appellant was viewed as "uncertain" as the children "did not speak of him very much in our sessions at all." Tr. at 111. In Ms. Moore's opinion, the children were capable of going through the permanency process leading to eventual adoption. ... No viable relatives came forward as possible placement or custodians for the children. Tr. at 126.

Section 2151.414(D) requires a trial court determining a child's best interest to consider the listed factors, including whether the child was in agency custody for at least twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period.

In Matter of morales/mendez, Unpublished Decision (12-4-2006) · filed 2006-12-04(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). ... Additionally, it is presently undisputed that the children had been in the temporary custody of SCDJFS for more than twelve of the prior twenty-two months at the time of the filing of the permanent custody motion. See R.C. 2151.414 (D)(3), supra. ... In the case sub judice, upon review of the record and the findings of fact and conclusions of law therein, we conclude the trial court's grant of permanent custody of Marcella, Gabriela, and Carlos to SCDJFS was made in the consideration of the children's best interests and did not constitute an error or an abuse of discretion.

Section 2151.414(D)'s best-interest test balances several factors; no single factor controls, so weak or missing evidence on one factor does not preclude permanent custody when the other factors strongly favor it.

In Re C. G., 24099 (7-30-2008) · filed 2008-07-30(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; [and] "(4) The child's need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to the agency[.]" R.C. 2151.414 (D)(1)-(4). ... Father has not cited, nor were we able to find, any decisions in which a court has recognized plain error in such a situation where evidence of one best interest factor is weak or lacking where the evidence on the other factors weighs heavily in favor of permanent custody. The best interest test is a balancing test of several factors and the Supreme Court has stressed that no single factor is controlling. See In re Schaefer , 111 Ohio St.3d 498 , 2006-Ohio-5513 , at ¶ 56 . Father's third assignment of error is overruled.

Section 2151.414(D) requires a juvenile court determining a child's best interest in a permanent-custody proceeding to consider all relevant factors, including each of the listed statutory factors.

In Matter of S.Y., 2008-A-0023 (9-5-2008) · filed 2008-09-05(D)

{¶ 27} Next, the magistrate and the juvenile court proceeded to the second prong of the statutory analysis, to wit: the determination that it is in the best interest of the minor child to grant permanent custody to appellee. In determining the best interest of the child at a permanent custody hearing, R.C. 2151.414 (D) mandates that the trial court must consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the following: ... {¶ 33} We have consistently held that the provisions of R.C. 2151.414 (D) are mandatory and "`must be scrupulously observed.'"

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

In Re D.J., 91916 (3-12-2009) · filed 2009-03-12(D)

In considering an award of permanent custody, the court must first determine whether, by clear and convincing evidence, it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody. R.C. 2151.414 (D). In determining the best interest of the child during the permanent custody hearing, the court must consider the factors listed in R.C. 2151.414 (D), which include the reasonable probability the child will be adopted; the interaction of the child with parents, siblings, and foster parents; the wishes of the child; the custodial history of the child; and the child's need for a legally secure permanent placement. ... There is clear and convincing evidence to support the finding that granting permanent custody to the Agency was in the best interest of the children.

Section 2151.414 requires the juvenile court to balance all applicable best-interest factors, with no single factor controlling, when deciding whether clear and convincing evidence supports permanent custody.

In re O.G. · filed 2013-03-04(D)(1)

{¶24} Although the trial court was required to consider the guardian’s recommendation as well as each of the other statutory best interest factors, as this Court has emphasized, “[t]he best interest test is a balancing test of several factors and the Supreme Court has stressed that no single factor is controlling.” In re C.G., 9th Dist. No. 24097 and 24099, 2008-Ohio-3773, ¶ 28, citing In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498, 2006–Ohio–5513, at ¶ 56. It is apparent from the trial court’s judgment entry and its extensive questioning of the guardian ad litem that the court considered the guardian’s recommendation but reasonably concluded that permanent custody, not an extension of temporary custody, was in the best interests of the children. ... {¶33} Having reviewed all of the evidence in the record, this Court concludes that the trial court had clear and convincing evidence before it to support its finding that permanent custody was in the best interests of these children.

Section 2151.414(D) provides factors for a court's best-interest determination.

In re A.R. · filed 2013-04-05(D)

R.C. 2151.414(D) provides factors to be considered ... (e) Whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this section apply in relation to the parents and child.

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 a legally secure permanent placement.

In re L.R. · filed 2013-07-15(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. ... Upon review of the record, it is clear that the record supports the trial court's finding that granting the motion for permanent custody is in J.R.’s and M.R.’s best interest. The trial court concluded the children's need for legally secure placement could not be achieved without awarding permanent custody to HCDJFS.

No best-interest factor has heightened significance or is dispositive; the juvenile court may assign relative weight based on the case's circumstances.

In re G.P. · filed 2026-02-17(D)(1)

Furthermore, no one best-interest factor is given greater weight or heightened significance pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(D)(1). ... Nor is any one factor dispositive. ... R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) "does not prioritize the factors. The juvenile court must be free to use its discretion to determine the relative weight to be accorded to the factors based on the particular circumstances of the case before it."

No best-interest factor receives greater weight or heightened significance; the court must assess the totality of the circumstances.

In re C.A.P. · filed 2026-02-26(D)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 does not require a court to give any of the best interest factors “greater weight or heightened significance.” ... When making its best interest determination, a trial court must consider the totality of the circumstances.

No best-interest factor receives greater weight or heightened significance; the court must consider the totality of the circumstances.

In re R.E.A. · filed 2026-06-25(D)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 does not require a court to give any of the best interest factors “greater weight or heightened significance.” ... When making its best interest determination, a trial court must consider the totality of the circumstances.

Permanent custody requires clear and convincing evidence of an enumerated first-prong circumstance and that permanent custody serves the child’s best interest under subsection (D)(1).

In re J.T. · filed 2022-02-16(B)(1), (D)(1), (E)

{¶9} Mother’s first assignment of error is that the trial court’s permanent custody decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Before a juvenile court may terminate parental rights and award permanent custody of a child to a proper moving agency, it must find clear and convincing evidence of both prongs of the permanent custody test: (1) that the child is abandoned; orphaned; has been in the temporary custody of the agency for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period; the child or another child of the same parent has been adjudicated abused, neglected, or dependent three times; or that the child cannot be placed with either parent, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414(E); and (2) that the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1). R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) and 2151.414(B)(2); see also In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95, 98-99 (1996).

Permanent custody requires clear and convincing evidence of one enumerated first-prong condition and that permanent custody is in the child’s best interest.

In re G.C. · filed 2022-03-04(B)(1)

{¶ 12} R.C. 2151.414 sets forth a two-part analysis for courts to consider when determining a motion for permanent custody to a public services agency. First, the trial court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the child either (a) cannot or should not be placed with the parent within a reasonable time; (b) is abandoned; (c) is orphaned and no relatives are able to take permanent custody; or (d) has been in the temporary custody of one or more public or private children services agency for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period. In re J.N., 2d Dist. Clark No. 2019-CA-82, 2020-Ohio-4157, ¶ 26; R.C. 2151.414. If the first prong is met, the court must then determine whether granting permanent custody is in the best interest of the child. Id.; R.C. 2151.414(B)(1).

R.C. 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence both that a statutory basis for permanent custody exists and that permanent custody is in the child's best interest, and a parent's continuous failure to remedy the conditions causing removal supports a finding that the child should not be placed with that parent.

In Re C.D. Children, Unpublished Decision (1-19-2005) · filed 2005-01-19(B)(1), (D), (E)(1), (E)(7)(c)

Before a juvenile court can terminate parental rights and award to a proper moving agency permanent custody of a child, it must find clear and convincing evidence of both prongs of the permanent custody test: (1) that the child is abandoned, orphaned, has been in the temporary custody of the agency for at least 12 months of the prior 22 months, or that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414 (E); and (2) the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414 (D). ... The trial court had ample evidence before it to support a conclusion that Keller had "failed continuously and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions" that had caused her five children to be placed outside the home. See R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1).

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence of both a qualifying first-prong circumstance and that permanent custody is in the child's best interest under the statutory factors.

In Re B.C.M., Unpublished Decision (4-20-2005) · filed 2005-04-20(B), (D), (E)(10)

Before a juvenile court can terminate parental rights and award to a proper moving agency permanent custody of a child, it must find clear and convincing evidence of both prongs of the permanent custody test: (1) that the child is abandoned, orphaned, has been in the temporary custody of the agency for at least 12 months of the prior 22 months, or that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414 (E); and (2) the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414 (D). ... As the best interest factors clearly weighed in favor of permanent custody to CSB, there was ample evidence before the trial court to support its finding that permanent custody was in the best interest of B.C.M. Therefore, as both prongs of the permanent custody test were satisfied, the trial court properly terminated parental rights and placed B.C.M. in the permanent custody of CSB.

Section 2151.414(B) establishes a two-pronged permanent-custody analysis requiring a court to find that one of four statutory circumstances applies before determining the child's best interest.

In Re Zink, Unpublished Decision (7-5-2005) · filed 2005-07-05(B)

Therefore, R.C. 2151.414 (B) establishes a two-pronged analysis the trial court must apply when ruling on a motion for permanent custody. In practice, the trial court will usually determine whether one of the four circumstances delineated in R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a) through (d) is present before proceeding to a determination regarding the best interest of the child.

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence that a statutory ground concerning the child's placement exists and that permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In Re Calvert Children, Unpublished Decision (10-24-2005) · filed 2005-10-24(B), (D), and (E)

Before a juvenile court can terminate parental rights and award permanent custody of a child to a proper moving agency, it must find clear and convincing evidence of both prongs of the permanent custody test: (1) that the child is abandoned, orphaned, has been in the temporary custody of the agency for at least 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). See R.C. § 2151.414 (B)(1) and § 2151.414 (B)(2); see, also, In re William S. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 95 , 99 , 661 N.E.2d 738 . Clear and convincing evidence is that which will cause the trier of fact to develop a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established. Cross v. Ledford (1954), 161 Ohio St. 469 , 120 N.E.2d 118 , paragraph three of the syllabus.

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

In Re English, Unpublished Decision (6-19-2006) · filed 2006-06-19(B)(1)

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

Section 2151.414(B) requires a juvenile court terminating parental rights and awarding permanent custody to a children services agency to find both that permanent custody is in the children's best interest and that the children cannot or should not be placed with either parent.

In Re R.A.M., Unpublished Decision (6-26-2006) · filed 2006-06-26(B)

R.C. 2151.414 (B) requires the juvenile court to apply a two-part test when terminating parental rights and awarding permanent custody to a children services agency. Specifically, the juvenile court must find that: (1) the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the children, utilizing, in part, the factors of R.C. 2151.414 (D); and (2) as applicable to the present case, the children cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent.

A juvenile court may terminate parental rights and award permanent custody only upon clear and convincing evidence that a statutory placement condition exists and that permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In Re A.K., Unpublished Decision (8-21-2006) · filed 2006-08-21(B)(1), (D), and (E)

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

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence both that a statutory threshold for permanent custody is satisfied and that permanent custody is in the child's best interest; the best-interest determination must consider the factors in subsection (D).

In Re L.S., 23523 (4-4-2007) · filed 2007-04-04(B)(1)(d), (D)

Before a juvenile court can terminate parental rights and award to a proper moving agency permanent custody of a child, it must find clear and convincing evidence of both prongs of the permanent custody test: (1) that the child is abandoned, orphaned, has been in the temporary custody of the agency for at least 12 months of the prior 22 months, or that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414 (E); and (2) the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414 (D). ... The trial court held that the first prong of the permanent custody test was satisfied because the children had been in the temporary custody of CSB for more than 12 of the prior 22 consecutive months. ... The record supports that finding and Mother does not argue otherwise.

A juvenile court may terminate parental rights and award permanent custody to an agency only upon clear and convincing evidence both of a qualifying circumstance under the first prong and that permanent custody is in the child's best interest under the second prong.

In Re J. F., 23492 (4-25-2007) · filed 2007-04-25(B)(1)

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

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence of both a statutory basis for permanent custody and that permanent custody is in the child’s best interest.

In Re A. S., 23456 (5-9-2007) · filed 2007-05-09(B)(1), (D)

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

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence of both a statutory basis for permanent custody and that permanent custody is in the child’s best interest.

In Re K.W., 23613 (7-18-2007) · filed 2007-07-18(B)(1), (D)

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

Section 2151.414(B)(1) requires a court first to find one of the listed threshold circumstances and then to determine by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In Re E.G., 07ap-26 (7-19-2007) · filed 2007-07-19(B)(1)

Once the trial court finds that one of the circumstances in R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a) through (d) apply, the trial court then must determine whether a grant of permanent custody is in the best interest of the child. R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1). FCCS must prove by clear and convincing evidence that an award of permanent custody is in the child's best interest. Id.

Section 2151.414(B) requires a juvenile court awarding permanent custody to a children services agency to find both that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and that one of the circumstances listed in subsection (B)(1) applies.

In Re K.E., Ca2007-03-069 (8-6-2007) · filed 2007-08-06(B)

R.C. 2151.414 (B) requires the juvenile court to apply a two-part test when terminating parental rights and awarding permanent custody to a children services agency. Specifically, the trial court must find that: 1) the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child, utilizing, in part, the factors of R.C. 2151.414 (D); and, 2) any of the following apply: the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent; the child is abandoned; the child is orphaned; or the child has been in the temporary custody of the agency for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period. R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d); In re Schaefer , 11 Ohio St.3d 498 , 2006-Ohio-5513 , ¶ 31-36 ; In re Ebenschweiger , Butler App. No. CA2003-04- 080, 2003-Ohio-5990 , ¶ 9 .

Section 2151.414 permits an award of permanent custody only when clear and convincing evidence supports both that the child cannot or should not be placed with a parent under division (E) and that permanent custody is in the child's best interest under division (D).

In Re Shores, 1-07-16 (10-1-2007) · filed 2007-10-01(D) and (E)

{¶ 44} Based on the foregoing, we find that the record is replete with clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's finding that Daniel and Laketta could not be placed with Rebecca within a reasonable time or should not be placed with her based upon an analysis of the factors contained in R.C. 2151.414 (E) so as to satisfy the first prong of the permanent custody test. Therefore we find that Rebecca's claim that the trial court erred in determining that the children should not be placed with her is not supported by the record. ... {¶ 52} Based on the foregoing, we find that the record is replete with clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's finding that the grant of permanent custody of Daniel and Laketta to the ACCSB would be in the best interests of the children based upon an analysis of the factors contained in R.C. 2151.414 (D) so as to satisfy the second prong of the permanent custody test.

Section 2151.414(B) requires a juvenile court terminating parental rights and awarding permanent custody to apply a two-part test: permanent custody must be in the child's best interest, and one of the circumstances specified in division (B)(1) must apply.

In Matter of L.J., Ca2007-07-080 (10-15-2007) · filed 2007-10-15(B)

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

Section 2151.414 requires a juvenile court awarding permanent custody to a children services agency to find both that permanent custody is in the child's best interest under division (D) and that one of the circumstances listed in division (B)(1) applies.

In Re T.M., Ca2007-04-016 (10-29-2007) · filed 2007-10-29(B)(1), (D)

R.C. 2151.414 (B) requires the juvenile court to apply a two-part test when terminating parental rights and awarding permanent custody to a children services agency. Specifically, the trial court must find that: 1) the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child, utilizing, in part, the factors of R.C. 2151.414 (D); and, 2) any of the following apply: the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent; the child is abandoned; the child is orphaned; or the child has been in the temporary custody of the agency for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period. R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d); In re Schaefer , 11 Ohio St.3d 498 , 2006-Ohio-5513 , ¶ 31-36 ; In re Ebenschweiger , Butler App. No. CA2003-04-080, 2003-Ohio-5990 , ¶ 9.

R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) requires clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and that at least one of four specified circumstances applies.

In Re kidd/gibbons Children, 2007ca00211 (12-17-2007) · filed 2007-12-17(B)(1)

{¶ 19} Following the hearing, R.C. 2151.414 (B) authorizes the trial court to grant permanent custody of the child to the public or private agency if the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody and that any of the following apply: (a) the child is not abandoned or orphaned, and the child cannot be placed with either of the child's parents within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with the child's parents; (b) the child is abandoned; (c) the child is orphaned and there are no relatives of the child who are able to take permanent custody; or (d) the child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or private child placement agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period ending on or after March 18, 1999. {¶ 20} Therefore, R.C. 2151.414 (B) establishes a two-prong analysis the trial court must apply when ruling on a motion for permanent custody. In practice, the trial court will usually determine whether one of the four circumstances delineated in R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a) through (d) is present before proceeding to a determination regarding the best interest of the child.

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

In Matter of Kessinger, 4-07-17 (1-22-2008) · filed 2008-01-22(B)(1)(d), (D)

Before a juvenile court may terminate parental rights and award permanent custody of a child to a properly moving agency, it must find clear and convincing evidence of both prongs of the permanent custody test: (1) that the child is abandoned, orphaned, has been in the temporary custody of the agency for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, or that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414 (E); and (2) that the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414 (D). ... Therefore, we find that the record contains clear and convincing evidence so as to satisfy the first prong of the permanent custody test. ... Based on the foregoing, we find that the record is replete with clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court's finding that the grant of permanent custody of Cheyenne and Kendavid Jr. to the DCJFS would be in the best interests of the children based upon an analysis of the factors contained in R.C. 2151.414 (D) so as to satisfy the second prong of the permanent custody test.

R.C. 2151.414 requires a court first to find by clear and convincing evidence that a condition in subsection (B)(1) exists and then to determine whether permanent custody is in the child's best interest using the non-exclusive factors in subsection (D).

In Re Robinson Children, 5-07-26 (3-17-2008) · filed 2008-03-17(B)(1), (D)

The trial court's analysis consists of two prongs. First, the trial court must determine if any conditions enumerated in R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1) are present. If any of these conditions exist, the trial court must then move on to the second prong and determine whether permanent custody is in the best interest of the child. ... After finding that one of the R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1) conditions is present, the trial court is then required to move to the second prong of the analysis and determine by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child's best interest. ... However, abuse of the child or intentional withholding of food or medical care are only two non-exclusive factors for the trial court to consider in determining the best interest of the child under R.C. 2151.414 (D).

R.C. 2151.414 requires a court considering permanent custody first to find a statutory condition under division (B)(1) and then to determine the child's best interest, using the relevant factors in divisions (D) and (E).

In Matter of Goodwin, 17-08-12 (10-20-2008) · filed 2008-10-20(B)(1)(a), (D), and (E)

R.C. 2151.414 sets forth a two-prong analysis for granting permanent custody. First, the trial court must determine whether any conditions set forth under R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1) are present. If a condition is found, the trial court then determines whether permanent custody is in the best interest of the child. ... Therefore, the record reflects that the trial court found the appropriate factors under R.C. 2151.414 (E) to warrant the determination that the children cannot be placed with Father within a reasonable amount of time and that the children should not be placed with Father. ... While the trial court could have bolstered its determination that the grant of permanent custody is in the best interests of the children with additional findings, we find the trial court found sufficient evidence of the factors set forth under R.C. 2151.414 (D) to support its conclusion that a grant of permanent custody to CSD was in the best interests of the children.

Section 2151.414(B) requires a juvenile court terminating parental rights and awarding permanent custody to a children services agency to find both that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and that one of the statutory grounds for permanent custody applies.

In Re D.J., Ca2008-06-142 (10-20-2008) · filed 2008-10-20(B)

R.C. 2151.414 (B) requires the juvenile court to apply a two-part test when terminating parental rights and awarding permanent custody to a children services agency.

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

In Re B. C., 24308 (11-26-2008) · filed 2008-11-26(B)(1), (D), (E)

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

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence of both a statutory ground for permanent custody and that permanent custody is in the child's best interest under the statutory factors.

In Re J.G., 24343 (12-31-2008) · filed 2008-12-31(B)(1), (D)

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

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence both that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent under at least one division (E) factor and that permanent custody serves the child's best interest under division (D); any one division (E) factor suffices.

In Re M.W., 91539 (1-15-2009) · filed 2009-01-15(D), (E)

Thus, the juvenile court must find, by clear and convincing evidence, (1) that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent, pursuant to at least one of the factors listed in R.C. 2151.414 (E); and (2) that the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child, utilizing, in part, the factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414 (D). ... It provides that if the trial court finds by clear and convincing evidence that any of the 16 factors exists, the court must enter a finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time. ... One of the 16 factors would have been sufficient.

Section 2151.414(B) establishes a two-prong analysis that a trial court must apply when ruling on a motion for permanent custody.

In Re Semedo-Blythe Children, 2008ca00112 (10-20-2008) · filed 2008-10-20(B)

Therefore, R.C. 2151.414 (B) establishes a two-prong analysis the trial court must apply when ruling on a motion for permanent custody.

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

In Matter of K.S., 2008 Ca 77 (2-6-2009) · filed 2009-02-06(B)(1)(a), (D), (E)(1)

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

Section 2151.414(B) requires a juvenile court awarding permanent custody to a children services agency to find both that permanent custody is in the child's best interest under the statutory factors and that one of the statute's four specified circumstances applies.

In Matter of C.T., Ca2008-07-180 (3-10-2009) · filed 2009-03-10(B)

R.C. 2151.414 (B) requires the juvenile court to apply a two-part test when terminating parental rights and awarding permanent custody to a children services agency. Specifically, the court must find that: (1) the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child, utilizing, in part, the factors of R.C. 2151.414 (D); and, (2) any of the following apply: the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent; the child is abandoned; the child is orphaned; or the child has been in the temporary custody of the agency for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period. R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d); In re Schaefer , 111 Ohio St.3d 498 , 2006-Ohio-5513 , ¶ 31-36 ; In re Ebenschweiger , Butler App. No. CA2003-04-080, 2003-Ohio-5990 , ¶ 9 .

A juvenile court may terminate parental rights and award permanent custody only upon clear and convincing evidence of both a qualifying first-prong ground and that permanent custody is in the child's best interest under subsection (D).

In Re O. T., 24403 (3-11-2009) · filed 2009-03-11(B)(1), (D), (E)

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

Section 2151.414(B)(1) requires a two-step permanent-custody inquiry: the court must first find one of the listed statutory circumstances and then determine that permanent custody is in the child's best interest, which the agency must prove by clear and convincing evidence.

In Re C.J.P., 08ap-665 (3-31-2009) · filed 2009-03-31(B)(1)

A decision to award permanent custody requires the trial court to take a two-step approach. ... Once the trial court finds that one of the circumstances in R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a) through (d) apply, the trial court then must determine whether a grant of permanent custody is in the best interest of the child. R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1). FCCS must prove by clear and convincing evidence that an award of permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence both that one of the specified threshold conditions exists and that permanent custody serves the child's best interest.

In Re R. H., 24537 (4-22-2009) · filed 2009-04-22(B)(1), (B)(2), and (D)

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

R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) requires a juvenile court terminating parental rights and granting permanent custody to a children services agency to find both that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and that one of the specified statutory circumstances applies.

In re A.S. · filed 2009-08-10(B)(1)

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

For a post-dispositional permanent-custody award, R.C. 2151.414 requires the court first to find a statutory condition under division (B) and then to determine under division (D) whether permanent custody is in the child’s best interest.

In re A.G.M.C. · filed 2010-10-25(B)(2), (D), (E)

Permanent custody determinations made via a post-dispositional hearing require a two-prong analysis. First, the trial court must determine whether any conditions set forth under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) or (2) are present. If a condition is found, the trial court then determines whether permanent custody is in the best interest of the child. ... Consequently, because we conclude that the trial court found that the factors supporting a grant of permanent custody to Children’s Services were present under R.C. 2151.414(E); that the trial court considered the best interest factors of R.C. 2151.414(D) when awarding permanent custody to Children’s Services; and, that all of the trial court’s findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence, we find there to be no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s award of permanent custody to Children’s Services.

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence of both a qualifying statutory ground for permanent custody and that permanent custody is in the child’s best interest.

In re C.C. · filed 2011-07-06(B)(1), (D), and (E)(2)

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: (1) that the child is abandoned, orphaned, has been in the temporary custody of the agency for at least 12 months of the prior 22 months, or that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414(E); and (2) the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414(D). See R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) and 2151.414(B)(2); see, also, In re William S. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 95, 99.

Section 2151.414 requires an agency seeking permanent custody to prove by clear and convincing evidence both a listed threshold condition and that permanent custody is in the child’s best interest; any one applicable factor under division (E) is sufficient to establish that the child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

In re I.M. · filed 2011-01-28(B)(1)(a), (D)(1), (E)(2), (E)(11), (E)(16)

Under R.C. 2151.414, an agency seeking permanent custody must meet a two-part test before parental rights may be terminated and permanent custody awarded. ... Under the first part of the test, one or more of conditions listed in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (d) must apply. ... As such, we agree with the trial court that there were at least three bases for determining that I.M. should not or could not be placed with Kasler in a reasonable time, any one of which would have been adequate to satisfy the first prong of the two-part permanent custody test. ... An agency seeking permanent custody must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that such action is in the best interest of the child. ... The trial court had clear and convincing evidence that awarding permanent custody to Children Services was in I.M.’s best interest and we overrule Angel Kasler’s sole assignment of error.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) requires an agency seeking permanent custody to satisfy a two-part test before parental rights may be terminated and permanent custody awarded.

In re A.S. · filed 2010-09-30(B)(1)

Under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1), an agency seeking permanent custody must meet a two-part test before parental rights may be terminated and permanent custody awarded.

A juvenile court may terminate parental rights only upon clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and that one of the four conditions in subsection (B)(1)(a) through (d) exists.

In re S.D. · filed 2011-12-23(B)(1)

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

Section 2151.414(B)(1) requires clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and that at least one of four alternative statutory circumstances exists.

In re K.M. · filed 2012-12-20(B)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 establishes a two-part test for courts to apply when determining a motion for permanent custody to a public services agency. The statute requires the court to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) granting permanent custody of the child to the agency is in the best interest of the child and (2) either the child (a) cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with either parent if any one of the factors in R.C. 2151.414(E) are present; (b) is abandoned; (c) is orphaned and no relatives are able to take permanent custody of the child; or (d) has been in the temporary custody of one or more public or private children services agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1).

Section 2151.414(B)(1) permits termination of parental rights and an award of permanent custody only if permanent custody is in the child's best interest and one of the statute's specified circumstances also applies.

In re K.L. · filed 2013-01-04(B)(1)

Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1), a court may terminate parental rights and award permanent custody to a children services agency if it makes findings pursuant to a two-part test. First, the court must find that the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child, utilizing, in part, the factors of R.C. 2151.414(D). Second, the court must find that any of the following apply: the child is abandoned; the child is orphaned; the child has been in the temporary custody of the agency for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period; or where the preceding three factors do not apply, the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) permits an award of permanent custody to a children services agency only when permanent custody is in the child's best interest under the relevant factors in division (D) and one of the listed circumstances concerning abandonment, orphanhood, time in agency custody, or inability to place the child with a parent also applies.

In re L.W. · filed 2013-01-11(B)(1), (D)(1)

Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1), a court may terminate parental rights and award permanent custody to a children services agency if it makes findings pursuant to a two-part test. First, the court must find that the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child, utilizing, in part, the factors of R.C. 2151.414(D). Second, the court must find that any of the following apply: the child is abandoned; the child is orphaned; the child has been in the temporary custody of the agency for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period; or where the preceding three factors do not apply, the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d); In re E.B., 12th Dist. Nos. CA2009-10-139, CA2009-11-146, 2010-Ohio-1122, ¶ 22.

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

In re J.A.W. · filed 2013-06-17(B)(1), (D)

R.C. 2151.414 provides the two-prong analysis a court must follow in permanent custody proceedings. Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1), a trial court may grant permanent custody if the court determines at the permanent custody hearing—by clear and convincing evidence—that it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody to the agency and that any of the following apply: ... Appellant does not dispute the applicability of subsection (d) in this case: J.A.W. has been in the temporary custody of TCCSB for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period. ... The competent, credible evidence at the permanent custody hearing supports the trial court’s determination by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the minor child to be permanently placed in the custody of TCCSB.

R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) requires a juvenile court to apply a two-part test when deciding whether to terminate parental rights and award permanent custody to a children services agency.

In re A.M.L. · filed 2013-06-03(B)(1)

Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1), a juvenile court must apply a two-part test in determining whether to terminate parental rights and award permanent custody to a children services agency.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) permits a court to terminate parental rights and award permanent custody only after making findings under a two-part test.

In re M.A.P. · filed 2013-02-25(B)(1)

Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1), a court may terminate parental rights and award permanent custody to a children services agency if it makes findings pursuant to a two-part test.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) requires clear and convincing evidence both that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and that one of the statute's specified circumstances concerning parental placement, abandonment, orphanhood, or time in agency custody exists.

In re S.J. · filed 2013-07-03(B)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 establishes a two-part test for courts to apply when determining a motion for permanent custody to a public services agency. The statute requires the court to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that: (1) granting permanent custody of the child to the agency is in the best interest of the child; and (2) either the child (a) cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with either parent if any one of the factors in R.C. 2151.414(E) are present; (b) is abandoned; (c) is orphaned and no relatives are able to take permanent custody of the child; or (d) has been in the temporary custody of one or more public or private children services agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period. ... Our review of the record, transcript, and exhibits indicates that there is competent, credible evidence that would allow the trial court to conclude that the statutory elements for termination under R.C. 2151.414(B) have been satisfied.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) permits a court to terminate parental rights and award permanent custody to a children services agency only if permanent custody is in the child's best interest and one of the statute's four specified circumstances applies.

In re Mn S.(F) · filed 2013-07-15(B)(1)

Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1), a court may terminate parental rights and award permanent custody to a children services agency if it makes findings pursuant to a two-part test. First, the court must find that the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child, utilizing, in part, the factors of R.C. 2151.414(D). Second, the court must find that any of the following apply: the child is abandoned; the child is orphaned; the child has been in the temporary custody of the agency for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period; or where the preceding three factors do not apply, the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent.

Section 2151.414(B)(1) establishes a two-part test for permanent custody: the court must find that permanent custody is in the child's best interest under the division (D) factors and that one of the conditions in divisions (B)(1)(a) through (d) applies.

In re S.G. · filed 2013-07-29(B)(1)

Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1), a court may terminate parental rights and award permanent custody to a children services agency if it makes findings pursuant to a two-part test. First, the court must find that the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child, utilizing, in part, the factors of R.C. 2151.414(D). "There is not one element that is given greater weight than the others pursuant to the statute." In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498, 2006-Ohio-5513, ¶ 56. Second, the court must find that any of the following apply: the child is abandoned; the child is orphaned; the child has been in the temporary custody of the agency for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period; or where the preceding three factors do not apply, the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d); In re E.B., 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2009-10-139, CA2009-11-146, 2010-Ohio-1122, ¶ 22.

A juvenile court may terminate parental rights and award permanent custody only upon clear and convincing evidence that a statutory placement condition exists and that permanent custody is in the children's best interests.

In re B.R. · filed 2013-09-18(B)(1)-(2), (D), and (E)

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

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence both that permanent custody is in the child's best interest under division (D) and that one of the circumstances listed in division (B)(1) exists.

In re A.C. · filed 2013-10-03(B)(1)

A trial court must apply a two-prong test under this statute, measured by clear and convincing evidence. Id. R.C. 2151.414 establishes a two-part test for courts to apply when determining a motion for permanent custody to a public services agency. The statute requires the court to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) granting permanent custody of the child to the agency is in the best interest of the child under R.C. 2151.414(D), and (2) either the child (a) cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with either parent if any one of the factors in R.C. 2151.414(E) are present; (b) is abandoned; (c) is orphaned and no relatives are able to take permanent custody of the child; or (d) has been in the temporary custody of one or more public or private children services agencies for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1).

Section 2151.414 requires clear and convincing evidence both that permanent custody is in the child's best interest and that one of the statutory placement-or-custody conditions applies.

In re S.A. · filed 2014-07-11(B)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 establishes a two-part test for courts to apply when determining a motion for permanent custody to a public services agency. The statute requires the court to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that: (1) granting permanent custody of the child to the agency is in the best interest of the child; and (2) either the child (a) cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with either parent if any one of the factors in R.C. 2151.414(E) are present; or (d) has been in the temporary custody of one or more public or private children services agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period.

Once the court finds any subsection (B)(1) ground, it must separately determine by clear and convincing evidence under subsection (D) whether permanent agency custody serves the child's best interest.

In re D.L.S. · filed 2015-07-13(B)(1)

“If the trial court determines that any provision enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) applies,” it must proceed to the second prong of the test, which requires the trial court to “determine, by clear and convincing evidence, whether granting the agency permanent custody of the child is in the child’s best interest,” based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414(D).

Once any subsection (B)(1) circumstance is established, the court must determine by clear and convincing evidence whether permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In re Jd.R. · filed 2017-05-23(B)(1)

Once the trial court finds that one of these circumstances applies, the trial court then must determine whether, "by clear and convincing evidence," the movant has shown that a grant of permanent custody is in the "best interest of the child."

Subsection (B)(1) requires clear and convincing evidence of one enumerated circumstance and a separate determination that permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In re G.B. · filed 2017-11-29(B)(1)

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 doing so, 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)-(e) exists.

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

In re G.Y. · filed 2018-02-23(B)(1)

R.C. 2151.414 establishes a two-part test for courts to apply when determining a motion for permanent custody of a child to a public children services agency. The statute requires the court to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that: (1) granting permanent custody of the child to the agency is in the best interest of the child; and (2) either the child (a) cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with either parent if any one of the factors in R.C. 2151.414(E) are present; (b) is abandoned; (c) is orphaned and no relatives are able to take permanent custody of the child; or (d) has been in the temporary custody of one or more public or private children services agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period.

Permanent custody requires clear and convincing evidence of one subsection (B)(1) circumstance and a separate best-interest determination under subsection (D).

In re M.K. · filed 2019-02-19(B)(1), (D)

Before a juvenile court can terminate parental rights and award permanent custody to the requesting agency, it must conduct a hearing and apply a two-pronged analysis. First, a court must find by clear and convincing evidence that one or more of the factors spelled out in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)-(e) applies. ... Second, upon finding one or more of these factors applicable, the trial court then must determine whether granting custody of the child to the Agency is in the child’s best interest pursuant to the analysis delineated in R.C. 2151.414(D).

Once any subsection (B)(1) condition is met, the court proceeds to the statutory best-interest factors.

In re Da.R. · filed 2019-06-10(B)(1)

The statute provides that the trial court should move on to consider the best interest factors if any of the conditions under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) are met.

The first step of the permanent-custody analysis requires clear and convincing evidence of any one of subsection (B)(1)(a) through (e)'s five threshold findings.

In re S.M.I. · filed 2019-06-13(B)(1)(a)-(e)

First (as a matter of practice, we have said, albeit not by statutory sequencing), the court must determine by clear and convincing evidence whether any one of five "threshold findings" applies.

Permanent custody requires one subsection (B)(1) threshold finding and a finding that permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In re T.L. · filed 2019-12-02(B)(1)

Thus, in order to grant permanent custody to the agency, the trial court must make one of the findings set out in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) and make a best interest finding.

After finding one subsection (B)(1)(a) through (d) circumstance, the trial court must determine whether permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In re T.A. · filed 2020-03-05(B)(1)

Once the trial court finds that one of the circumstances in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (d) applies, the trial court then must determine whether a grant of permanent custody is in the best interest of the child.

Subsection (B)(2) requires permanent custody when the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent under subsection (E) and permanent custody is in the child's best interest under subsection (D).

In re C.C. · filed 2020-03-30(B)(2)

Under R.C. 2151.414(B)(2), the court shall grant permanent custody of the child to the movant if the court determines in accordance with division (E) of this section that the child cannot be placed with one of the child’s parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent and determines in accordance with division (D) of this section that permanent custody is in the child’s best interest.

Permanent custody requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one subsection (B)(1) factor and that custody serves the child's best interest under subsection (D).

In re C.N.L. · filed 2020-07-20(B)(1), (D)

Before a juvenile court can terminate parental rights and award permanent custody to the requesting Agency, it must conduct a hearing and apply a two-pronged analysis.

Subsection (B) establishes a two-pronged analysis that first asks whether a statutory threshold circumstance exists and then considers the child's best interest.

In re J.H. · filed 2020-08-10(B)

Therefore, R.C. §2151.414(B) establishes a two-pronged analysis the trial court must apply when ruling on a motion for permanent custody.

Permanent custody requires one of subsection (B)(1)'s five threshold conditions and a finding that permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In re D.Z.F. · filed 2020-11-10(B)(1)

Under R.C. 2151.414(B), the juvenile court may grant a motion for permanent custody if it finds that one of the five conditions set forth in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) applies and that permanent custody is in the best interest of the child.

Subsection (B)(1) establishes a two-pronged test for an agency's permanent-custody motion.

In re R/G Children · filed 2021-03-19(B)(1)

R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) sets forth a two-pronged test for courts to apply when determining whether to grant a motion for permanent custody to a public children services agency.

Permanent custody is proper when the statutory threshold and best-interest factors are met.

In re B. Children · filed 2021-03-24(B)(1), (D)(1)

Because the statutory factors were met, we hold the juvenile court did not err in granting permanent custody to HCJFS.

Permanent custody is proper when the statutory threshold and best-interest factors are met.

In re S. & L. Children · filed 2021-03-31(B)(1), (D)(1)

Because the statutory factors were met, we hold the juvenile court did not err in granting permanent custody to HCJFS.

A juvenile court must apply subsection (B)(1)'s two-pronged test before terminating parental rights and granting permanent custody.

In re R · filed 2021-03-31(B)(1)

Before terminating parental rights and granting permanent custody to a public child-services agency, a juvenile court must apply the two-pronged test established by R.C. 2151.414(B)(1).

Permanent custody requires clear and convincing evidence of one condition in subsection (B)(1)(a) through (e) and that permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In re I.S.-S. · filed 2021-05-20(B)(1)

Division (B) of R.C. 2151.414 sets forth a two-prong analysis to be applied by a juvenile court. Pursuant to this division, before a trial court can terminate parental rights and grant permanent custody to a county agency, the court must find by clear and convincing evidence (1) the existence of any one of the conditions set forth in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (e), and (2) that granting permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child.

Permanent custody requires a qualifying circumstance under subsection (B)(1) before the court determines the child's best interest.

In re B.R. · filed 2021-09-13(B)

Therefore, R.C. §2151.414(B) establishes a two-pronged analysis the trial court must apply when ruling on a motion for permanent custody. In practice, the trial court will usually determine whether one of the four circumstances delineated in R.C. §2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (d) is present before proceeding to a determination regarding the best interest of the child.

Permanent custody requires clear and convincing proof that one of subsection (B)(1)(a) through (e)'s conditions applies and that permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In re J.L. · filed 2025-02-10(B)(1)

Specifically, there are two separate elements that must be established by clear and convincing evidence: (1) one or more of the conditions in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (e) must apply1; and (2) granting permanent custody to an agency must be in the child’s best interest.

A permanent-custody court must first determine whether a subsection (B)(1) circumstance applies and then determine whether permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In re D.S. · filed 2025-02-11(B)(1)

Thus, “[a] decision to award permanent custody requires the trial court to take a two-step approach.” In re K.L. at ¶ 18. “First, a trial court must determine if any of the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) apply,” and second, the trial court determines whether granting permanent custody to the Agency is in the best interest of the child.

Only one subsection (B)(1) circumstance is needed before the court proceeds to the child's best-interest analysis.

In re T.S. · filed 2025-02-13(B)(1)

Only one of the four factors must be present for the first prong of the permanent custody analysis to be satisfied. Once the juvenile court ascertains that one of the four factors listed in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) is present, then the court proceeds to an analysis of the child’s best interest.

A court ruling on permanent custody must first determine eligibility under subsection (B) and then, if eligible, determine the child's best interests under subsection (D).

In re S/F Children · filed 2025-03-12(B), (D)

In ruling on such a permanent-custody motion, the juvenile court must engage in a two-pronged analysis. First, it must ask whether the child is eligible for a permanent-custody disposition under R.C. 2151.414(B). Then, if the child is eligible, the juvenile court must determine whether a disposition of permanent custody would be in the child’s best interests under R.C. 2151.414(D).

Subsection (B)(1) provides a two-part permanent-custody test.

In re M.W. · filed 2025-06-02(B)(1)

"R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) provides a two-part permanent custody test."

After finding one subsection (B)(1) circumstance, the court must determine the child's best interest by considering all relevant subsection (D)(1) factors.

In re E.B. · filed 2025-06-05(B)(1), (D)(1)

Once the trial court determines one of the circumstances in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (e) applies, the trial court then must determine whether a grant of permanent custody is in the best interest of the child.

Subsection (B) requires a qualifying statutory circumstance before the court proceeds to decide the child's best interest.

In re Z.C. · filed 2025-06-16(B)

Therefore, R.C. 2151.414(B) establishes a two-pronged analysis the trial court must apply when ruling on a motion for permanent custody. In practice, the trial court will usually determine whether one of the four circumstances delineated in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (d) is present before proceeding to a determination regarding the best interest of the child.

The permanent-custody test was satisfied where the court considered all five best-interest factors and the children had been in agency custody for at least twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period.

In re C.L. · filed 2025-08-11(B)(1)(d)

Because the juvenile court considered all five of the "best interest of the children" factors, it satisfied part one of its statutory duties. ... The relevant Legal Circumstance in this case is whether the children were in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period. ... We conclude the juvenile court satisfied the two-part permanent custody test.

Permanent custody requires clear and convincing evidence that one subsection (B)(1)(a) through (e) condition applies and that permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In re L.F. · filed 2025-08-25(B)(1)

Specifically, there are two separate elements that must be established by clear and convincing evidence: (1) one or more of the conditions in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (e) must apply; and (2) granting permanent custody to an agency must be in the child’s best interest.

Only one subsection (B)(1) finding is needed to satisfy the statutory-ground prong of the permanent-custody test.

In re B.T. · filed 2025-08-25(B)(1)

Only one of these findings must be met to satisfy the second prong of the two-part permanent custody test.

Permanent custody requires clear and convincing evidence of both a qualifying subsection (B)(1) ground and that custody is in the child's best interest under subsection (D)(1).

In re T.H. · filed 2025-09-08(B)(1), (D)(1)

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

Subsection (B)(1) supplies a two-part permanent-custody test, one part of which requires a best-interest finding.

In re J.K. · filed 2025-09-08(B)(1)

That statute provides a two-part permanent custody test to be applied to the case at bar.

The first permanent-custody prong requires only one applicable subsection (B)(1)(a) through (e) condition.

In re R.W. · filed 2025-09-11(B)(1)

First, the juvenile court needs to determine that at least one of the conditions outlined in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)-(e) is applicable — establishing just one condition is sufficient.

Only one subsection (B)(1) factor is needed to satisfy the first prong of the permanent-custody analysis.

In re A.R. · filed 2025-09-18(B)(1)

“Only one of the factors must be present to satisfy the first prong of the two-part analysis for granting permanent custody to an agency.”

After a qualifying subsection (B)(1) ground is established, the court must determine whether permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In re Z.A. · filed 2025-11-21(B)(1)

If the first prong is met, the court must then determine whether granting permanent custody is in the best interest of the child.

Permanent custody requires clear and convincing evidence of one subsection (B)(1)(a) through (e) factor and that permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In re Da.C. · filed 2025-11-26(B)(1)

In order to terminate parental rights and award permanent custody of a child to a public services agency under R.C. 2151.414, the juvenile court must find two things by clear and convincing evidence: (1) that one of the enumerated factors in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)-(e) apply, and (2) that permanent custody is in the best interests of the child.

Permanent custody requires clear and convincing evidence of one subsection (B)(1)(a) through (e) condition and that custody is in the child's best interest under subsection (D).

In re C.H. · filed 2025-11-26(B)(1), (D)

The juvenile court must find clear and convincing evidence that (1) one or more of the conditions set forth in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)-(e) exist, and (2) a grant of permanent custody is in the child’s best interest.

Permanent custody requires clear and convincing evidence that one subsection (B)(1)(a) through (e) factor exists and that custody is in the child's best interest.

In re A.W. · filed 2025-12-19(B)(1)

The statute requires the trial court to find by clear and convincing evidence that (1) any one of the factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (e) exist, and (2) an award of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child.

Subsection (B)(1) provides a two-part permanent-custody test, including a finding that custody is in the child's best interest.

In re G.B. · filed 2025-12-30(B)(1)

That statute provides a two-part permanent custody test.

Once subsection (B)(1)(d)'s twelve-of-twenty-two condition is established, the court proceeds to review the subsection (D)(1) best-interest factors.

In re M.S. · filed 2025-12-31(B)(1)(d)

Having demonstrated at least one of the conditions under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) has been met, this court must review R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a)-(e) to determine whether the juvenile court properly determined that permanent custody was in the children’s best interest.

The permanent-custody determination is a two-step process: one subsection (B)(1) factor must apply, followed by a best-interest determination.

In re A.H. · filed 2026-03-03(B)(1)

The determination whether to grant permanent custody of a child to a public children services agency involves a two-step process.

Subsection (B) establishes a two-pronged permanent-custody analysis requiring a statutory circumstance and a best-interest determination.

In re E.A. · filed 2026-03-18(B)

Therefore, R.C. 2151.414(B) establishes a two-pronged analysis the trial court must apply when ruling on a motion for permanent custody.

Permanent custody requires clear and convincing evidence that one subsection (B)(1)(a) through (e) factor exists and that custody is in the child's best interest under subsection (D)(1).

In re Ju.G. · filed 2026-06-04(B)(1), (D)(1)

Under the statute, the juvenile court is authorized to grant permanent custody of a child to the agency if, after a hearing, the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that any of the five factors under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)-(e) exists and that permanent custody is in the best interest of the child under the factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1).

Only one subsection (B)(1) factor is required to satisfy the first prong of the permanent-custody analysis.

In re C.C. · filed 2026-06-04(B)(1)

“Only one of the factors must be present to satisfy the first prong of the two-part analysis for granting permanent custody to an agency.”

Section 2151.414(B) requires clear and convincing evidence both that a listed condition applies and that permanent custody is in the child's best interest.

In Re K.S., Unpublished Decision (5-26-2004) · filed 2004-05-26(B)

Before a juvenile court can terminate parental rights and award permanent custody to a proper moving agency, it must find clear and convincing evidence of both portions of the permanent custody test as set forth in R.C. 2151.414 (B). ... This Court is convinced that such a conclusion has not been sufficiently supported by clear and convincing evidence in the present case.

Only one finding under § 2151.414(E) is needed to satisfy the first prong of the permanent custody test.

In re G.D. · filed 2015-11-12(E)

Only one of the findings under R.C. 2151.414(E) must be met in ... order for the first prong of the permanent custody test to be satisfied.

Section 2151.414(D)(2) requires the juvenile court to consider the children's wishes when deciding permanent custody.

In Re Ridenour, Unpublished Decision (1-28-2005) · filed 2005-01-28(D)(2)

Thus, the juvenile court has complied with our instructions on remand of issuing a new judgment, taking into consideration the children's wishes as required by R.C. 2151.414 (D)(2).

Section 2151.414(D)(2) makes a child's wishes one of several best-interest factors, not a controlling consideration.

In Re D.B., Unpublished Decision (1-27-2006) · filed 2006-01-27(D)(2)

Denise also relies on the fact that her son, D.F., expressed a desire to live with her. While this is one of many factors under R.C. 2151.414 (D), it is not controlling.

Section 2151.414(D)(2) requires the trial court to consider a child's placement wishes or find from credible evidence that the child cannot meaningfully express them.

In the Matter of J.W., Unpublished Decision (3-27-2007) · filed 2007-03-27(D)(2)

In determining the best interest of a child, a trial court is required to consider all relevant factors including, but not limited to, the following: ... (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; ... R.C. 2151.414 (D). The failure to consider each of these factors in reaching a determination concerning a child's best interest is prejudicial error. ... Thus, the trial court was required to consider J.W.'s wishes or find that he was not capable of expressing those wishes. The trial court did neither. The trial court's failure to discern whether J.W. was capable of expressing his wishes as to placement and, if so, what those wishes were, is reversible error and requires the vacation of the judgment granting permanent custody, and a remand to the trial court.

Section 2151.414(D)(2) requires the court to consider the child's wishes when deciding best interest, but the court need not list the factors it found applicable, and a silent record does not establish that the court failed to consider those wishes.

In Re A.J.S., 2007 Ca 2 (6-29-2007) · filed 2007-06-29(D)(2)

Second, the father contends that the trial court erred in not considering the wishes of the minor children pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (D)(2). The applicable statutory provision provides that in determining best interest of a child, "the court shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the following: * * * (2) [t]he 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[.]" ... We agree with the position of the Eighth District Court of Appeals that, while R.C. 2151.414 (D) requires the court to "consider all relevant factors" as set forth in this subsection, it does not require the court to list those factors or conditions it found applicable before making its determination that the permanent custody is in that child's best interest. See In re I.M. , Cuyahoga App. Nos. 82669 82695, 2003-Ohio-7069 . Because the record does not demonstrate that the trial court failed to consider the wishes of the children as expressed through the guardian ad litem, we cannot find that the trial court erred in this determination.

Section 2151.414(D)(2) requires a juvenile court deciding permanent custody to consider the children's wishes, conveyed directly to the court or through the guardian ad litem.

In Re Allen, 2008-T-0008 (7-3-2008) · filed 2008-07-03(D)(2)

Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (D)(2), the juvenile court is required to consider the children's wishes, as conveyed directly to the court or expressed through the guardian ad litem. In re Williams , 11th Dist. Nos. 2003-G-2498 2003-G-2499, 2003-Ohio-3550, at ¶ 30. A judgment that fails to consider the children's wishes is subject to reversal.

In the best-interest analysis, a child's wishes are one factor among several, and the court has discretion to determine the weight given to each factor without elevating the child's wishes over the others.

In re A.M.1 · filed 2010-11-22(D)

A child’s wish is but one of several factors that a court must consider when conducting a best interest analysis. A court has discretion to determine the weight to afford to each factor, and need not elevate the child’s wish over any other factor.

Section 2151.414(D)(1)(b) requires the court to consider the child's wishes, expressed directly or through the guardian ad litem with due regard for the child's maturity, and a lack of bonding or attachment may be evidence of those wishes.

In re D.N. · filed 2011-09-09(D)(1)(b)

Under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(b), “In determining the best interest of a child * * * the court shall consider all relevant factors, including * * * [t]he 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[.]” ... In our view, this lack of bonding or attachment is evidence of D.N.’s wishes concerning (1) Father’s parental rights and (2) the motion for permanent custody. ... Because there is no evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the juvenile court considered D.N.’s wishes. Therefore, we find no plain error under Father’s wishes-of-the-child argument.

Section 2151.414(D)(1)(b) requires a juvenile court deciding a child’s best interests to consider the child’s wishes, expressed directly or through the guardian ad litem, but failure to ascertain those wishes is harmless when substantial evidence on the remaining best-interest factors supports permanent custody.

In re N.G. · filed 2012-06-25(D)(1)(b)

As quoted above, R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) sets forth the best interest factors that the trial court is required to consider, including “[t]he wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the child or through the child’s guardian ad litem[.]” R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(b). Although the trial court has the discretion to decide whether this evidence will be presented through the child’s own testimony or that of the guardian ad litem, the statute explicitly requires the trial court to consider the child’s wishes as part of its best interest determination. ... In other words, the trial court’s failure to ascertain the child’s wishes will not constitute reversible error if there was substantial evidence on the remaining factors to support the trial court’s conclusion that permanent custody was in the child’s best interest.

A child's stated wish for reunification may receive less weight when it rests on the mistaken belief that the parent has become drug-free.

In re I.A.C.A. · filed 2015-01-27(D)(1)(b)

The older child's wish is to be reunited with her mother, but this desire is somewhat ill-informed as it is based on the premise that her mother is drug free. The trial court had the opportunity to interview the child who recalled that her "mother had a lot of boyfriends whom [I.A.C.A.] did not like as they always kept mother in a room." (Decision, at 8.) The older child believes her mother to be free of drugs and thinks she is a changed person. The evidence shows that K.C. has not been able to achieve a drug free sober life, and the guardian ad litem recommended that the court not separate the children and that the court grant permanent custody for purposes of adoption.

A trial court may ascertain a child's wishes through the guardian ad litem and need not personally interview the child.

In re T.S. · filed 2017-02-10(D)(1)(b)

Because the foregoing provision authorized the trial court to ascertain the child’s wishes through the guardian ad litem, the trial court was not required to interview the child.

A court fulfills section 2151.414(D)(1)(b)'s duty to consider young children's wishes when those wishes are presented through the guardian ad litem's report, recommendation, and testimony and through the children's counsel.

In re A.M. · filed 2023-04-25(D)(1)(b)

The magistrate found that the children, who were eight and four years old, “are too young to express their wishes independently” but that “the children’s wishes were expressed through the report, recommendation, and testimony of the Guardian ad Litem, and arguments of counsel.” ... The children’s separate counsel participated in the permanent custody hearing and argued against granting permanent custody to ACCSB. Thus, the trial court fulfilled its statutory duty to consider the children’s wishes.

Section 2151.414(D)(1)(b) requires a juvenile court deciding permanent custody to consider the child's wishes, expressed directly or through a guardian ad litem, with due regard for the child's maturity.

In re E.H. · filed 2022-04-08(D)(1)(b)

Accordingly, based upon the record before us, we cannot discern from the juvenile court's decision and the court's judgment entry that the court satisfied the statutory requirement that it consider the enumerated factor of R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(b).

Section 2151.414(D)(1)(b) requires a court deciding permanent custody to consider the child's wishes, expressed directly or through a guardian ad litem, with due regard for the child's maturity.

In re D.N. · filed 2014-12-08(D)(1)(b)

In determining the best interest of the child, R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(b) requires the court to consider "[t]he 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."

Section 2151.414(D) requires a juvenile court deciding a child's best interests to consider every enumerated factor, but the court need not specifically discuss each factor in its judgment entry or use particular wording if the record indicates that all factors were considered.

In the Matter of Hershberger, Unpublished Decision (2-7-2005) · filed 2005-02-07(D)(5)

While we agree that a juvenile court is required to consider all of the enumerated factors pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (D), we will not go so far as to adopt the Eleventh District Court of Appeals requirement that each factor must be specifically discussed in the judgment entry. There must be some indication on the record that all of the factors in R.C. 2151.414 (D) were considered; however, we will not require a juvenile court to utter any magic or talismanic wording to pass statutory muster.

Section 2151.414(D) does not require a trial court to enumerate every best-interest factor in its decision, but the record must indicate that it considered all necessary factors.

In Re M.R.D., Unpublished Decision (10-27-2005) · filed 2005-10-27(D)

A trial court is not required to specifically enumerate each factor under R.C. 2151.414 (D) in its decision. ... However, there must be some indication on the record that all of the necessary factors were considered. ... While the court did not specifically enumerate each factor under R.C. 2151.414 (D) in its decision, there is some indication on the record that all of the necessary factors were considered.

Section 2151.414(D) does not require a trial court to specifically enumerate each best-interest factor in its decision, but the record must indicate that it considered all necessary factors.

In Matter of Turner, Unpublished Decision (12-15-2006) · filed 2006-12-15(D)

However, this Court has held that a trial court is not required to specifically enumerate each factor under R.C. 2151.414 (D) in its decision. ... Nevertheless, there must be some indication on the record that all of the necessary factors were considered.

Section 2151.414(D)(1) does not require a juvenile court to enumerate the best-interest factors in its judgment entry when no findings of fact and conclusions of law were requested and clear and convincing evidence in the record supports the best-interest determination.

In re M.B. · filed 2011-03-04(D)(1)

Appellant claims the trial court erred in awarding permanent custody of the children to appellee because the journal entry is devoid of any of the best interest factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1). We disagree. ... Appellant argues the trial court's decision failed to make any findings of fact other than a passing reference to the testimony presented during the hearing. We note no request was made for findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(C). ... Upon review, we find the trial court had before it clear and convincing evidence to determine permanency to appellee was in the children's best interest.

A juvenile court must base its permanent-custody best-interest finding on the mandatory statutory factors, but it need not expressly detail a finding on each factor if the record indicates that it considered them all.

In re R.H. · filed 2011-12-29(D)(1)

Although this Court has held that the trial court must make a best interest finding based on the mandatory factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D), it has only noted in dicta that the trial court “should” also detail its findings on each best interest factor, as such reasoning would aid this Court’s ability to conduct a meaningful appellate review. ... In this case, although the better practice would have been for the trial court to more fully articulate its reasoning for its ultimate best interest finding, Father has failed to demonstrate that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to do so.

A permanent-custody court must expressly find that custody is in the child's best interest after considering the mandatory statutory factors, but it need not detail a separate finding on every factor.

In re A.H. · filed 2014-02-18(D)

Although this Court has held that the trial court must make an explicit best interest finding after considering the mandatory factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D), it has only noted in dicta that the trial court “should” also detail its findings on each best interest factor, as such reasoning would aid this Court’s ability to conduct a meaningful appellate review. See, e.g., In re M.B., 9th Dist. Summit No. 21760, 2004–Ohio–597. The trial court explicitly found that “it is in the child’s best interests to permanently terminate parental rights and grant permanent custody to [LCCS].” It further indicated that, in making that finding, it had considered “all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, those factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(D)[.]”

A permanent-custody judgment must either specifically address every required subsection (D) consideration or affirmatively indicate elsewhere in the record that the court considered the listed factors.

In re L.W. · filed 2017-06-19(D)

This court has previously held that “[i]n rendering its judgment, the trial court must either specifically address each of the required considerations set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D) in its judgment entry or otherwise provide some affirmative indication in the record that the court considered the specific factors listed in R.C. 2151.414(D).”

A juvenile court need not expressly discuss each subsection (D)(1) factor if the record otherwise shows that all necessary factors were considered.

In re J/B Children · filed 2020-03-24(D)(1)

We strongly encourage the juvenile court’s discussion of each factor, but we cannot find error in the juvenile court’s failure to discuss each factor if the record otherwise indicates that all of the necessary factors were considered.

A permanent-custody determination may be affirmed even when the trial court did not specify how it weighed each subsection (D)(1) factor, if its decision and the record support the award.

In re J.R. · filed 2020-04-07(D)(1)

Here, though the juvenile court did not specify which of the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a) through (e) favored PCC, the juvenile court's decision and the evidence in the record support the trial court's decision in favor of PCC.

Subsection (D)(1) requires consideration of each best-interest factor but does not require the juvenile court to expressly discuss or make written findings on each one.

In re A.M. (Slip Opinion) · filed 2020-11-03(D)(1)

Based on the plain and unambiguous statutory language, and consistently with our treatment of the word “consider” in other contexts, we hold that R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) does not require a juvenile court to expressly discuss each of the best-interest factors in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a) through (e). Consideration is all the statute requires.

Subsection (D)(1) requires consideration, but not express discussion, of every listed best-interest factor.

In re J.C.F. · filed 2021-03-31(D)(1)

R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) does not require a juvenile court to expressly discuss each of the best-interest factors in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a) through (e). Consideration is all the statute requires.

A permanent-custody decision satisfies the statutory best-interest analysis when the court considers the relevant factors and makes findings supporting its decision.

In re I.N. · filed 2021-04-22(D)

And after reviewing each child’s case, we find that the trial court engaged in the proper analysis, considered the relevant best-interest factors required by R.C. 2151.414(D), and set forth multiple findings supporting its decision.

A juvenile court must consider each best-interest factor but need not expressly discuss each factor in its decision.

In re H.H. · filed 2021-05-20(D)(1)

R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) does not require a juvenile court to expressly discuss each of the best-interest factors in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a) through (e).

Permanent custody is permissible when clear and convincing evidence supports the statutory best-interest findings and those findings weigh in favor of agency custody.

In re E.A.J.R. · filed 2021-12-22(D)(1)

Upon review, we find that there was clear and convincing evidence in the record to support all of the trial court’s best-interest findings under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1). Because those findings were supported by competent, credible evidence, and because they weighed in favor of finding that it was in the best interest of the children to grant GCCS permanent custody, we do not find that the trial court’s decision to award GCCS permanent custody was an abuse of discretion.

A permanent-custody best-interest finding is sustainable when competent, credible evidence supports the statutory considerations.

In re C.P. · filed 2021-12-22(D)(1)

The record contains competent and credible evidence supporting the court’s finding that the interests of the children are best served by awarding permanent custody to MCCS.

A juvenile court must consider the enumerated best-interest factors, but the statute does not require written discussion or express findings on each factor.

In re V.G. · filed 2022-01-27(D)(1)

Consideration is all the statute requires. Although a reviewing court must be able to discern from the magistrate’s or juvenile court’s decision, and the court’s judgment entry, that the court satisfied the statutory requirement that it consider the enumerated factors, we may not graft onto the statute a requirement that the court include in its decision a written discussion of or express findings regarding each of the best-interest factors.

A juvenile court must either address each required best-interest factor specifically or otherwise affirmatively indicate that it considered the listed factors.

In re T.P. · filed 2022-08-29(D)

A trial court must either specifically address each of the required factors or otherwise provide some affirmative indication that it considered the listed factors.

A juvenile court need not make specific findings or include a written discussion of every best-interest factor.

In re J.S. · filed 2022-09-20(D)(1)

R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) does not require a juvenile court to make specific findings regarding each best-interest factor listed in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) or to include in its decision or judgment entry a written discussion of each of those factors.

The statute requires consideration of each best-interest factor but not an express discussion of each one, so long as review can discern that the factors were considered.

In re R.S. · filed 2022-12-08(D)(1)

Consideration is all the statute requires. Although a reviewing court must be able to discern from the magistrate’s or juvenile court’s decision and the court’s judgment entry that the court satisfied the statutory requirement that it consider the enumerated factors, we may not graft onto the statute a requirement that the court include in its decision a written discussion of or express findings regarding each of the best-interest factors.

Subsection (D)(1) requires consideration of each best-interest factor but does not require the juvenile court to expressly discuss each factor.

In re Ar.M. · filed 2025-03-06(D)(1)

R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) does not require a juvenile court to expressly discuss each of the best interest factors in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a) through (e). Consideration is all the statute requires.

A court may consider other relevant best-interest factors but must consider every factor enumerated in subsection (D)(1).

In re T.S. · filed 2025-06-18(D)(1)

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.

Subsection (D) directs a permanent-custody court to consider all relevant factors as well as its specifically listed best-interest factors.

In re C.E. · filed 2025-12-10(D)

R.C. 2151.414(D) lists the factors that a trial court considers when determining whether permanent custody will serve a child’s best interest. The statute 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.

Subsection (D)(1) requires consideration of its best-interest factors but does not require the juvenile court to expressly discuss each factor.

In re F.B. · filed 2025-12-11(D)(1)

Rather, “[c]onsideration is all the statute requires.”

For the subsection (D)(1) best-interest inquiry, consideration of every factor is required, but express discussion of each factor is not.

In re L.R. · filed 2026-03-05(D)(1)

In order to satisfy the second prong regarding permanent custody, the juvenile court must consider “all relevant factors,” including the nonexhaustive list under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a) through (e). In re A.M., 2020-Ohio-5102, at ¶ 19. “Consideration is all the statute requires.” Id. at ¶ 31.

Subsection (D)(1) requires consideration, but not express discussion, of each best-interest factor.

In re M.C. · filed 2026-03-26(D)(1)

R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) does not require a juvenile court to expressly discuss each of the best-interest factors in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a) through (e). “Consideration is all the statute requires.”