Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2151.414

In a legal-custody disposition, subsection (D)(1)'s permanent-custody factors may guide the juvenile court but are merely instructive rather than mandatory.

In re M.P. · filed 2025-02-24(D)(1)

We have held that a trial court can be guided by the factors listed in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) (the permanent-custody factors) and/or R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) (private custody factors), but both are merely instructive.

A juvenile court deciding legal custody after an abuse, dependency, or neglect adjudication is guided by subsection (D)'s permanent-custody best-interest factors.

In re A.S. · filed 2025-02-26(D)

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

Although the legal-custody statute supplies no best-interest factors, subsection (D)'s permanent-custody factors are instructive in deciding legal custody.

In re C.G. · filed 2025-02-27(D)

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

Subsection (D)'s best-interest factors are instructive when a juvenile court decides a motion for legal custody.

In re N.B. · filed 2025-05-22(D)

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

A court deciding legal custody may use subsection (D)'s best-interest factors as guidance to the extent applicable.

In re B.R.F. · filed 2025-06-11(D)

In determining whether to grant legal custody to a petitioner under R.C. 2151.353(A)(3), the statute does not require the juvenile court to consider any specific criteria, but this court has held that the court may be guided by the best-interest factors as set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D) and 3109.04(F), to the extent applicable.

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

In re A.M. · filed 2025-06-18(D)

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

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

In re E.H. · filed 2025-09-08(D)

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

In legal-custody dispositions, subsection (D)'s factors are merely instructive rather than mandatory predicates.

In re A.W. · filed 2025-09-08(D)

Instead, we have held that the different statutes “are merely instructive on the question of a child’s best interests.” Id. at ¶ 17. Because the General Assembly did not include specific factors to consider in R.C. 2151.353, we “presume that the legislature did not intend to require the consideration of certain factors as a predicate for granting legal custody.”

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

In re Q.N. · filed 2025-09-10(D)

The juvenile court is guided by the best interest factors enumerated in Section 2151.414(D) of the Revised Code relating to permanent custody.

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

In re K.S. · filed 2026-03-31(D)

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

Because the legal-custody modification statute lists no best-interest factors, a juvenile court may use subsection (D)(1)'s factors for guidance.

In re B.B. · filed 2026-04-08(D)(1)

This and other courts have therefore held that a “juvenile court may look to the factors in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) or 3109.04(F) for guidance.”

Incarceration does not defeat an unwillingness-to-provide finding when the parent failed to provide the children’s basic necessities for an extended period before incarceration.

In re W. Children · filed 2019-02-27(E)(14)

Mother argues that she was unable to provide necessities during her incarceration, but clear and convincing evidence supported the court’s finding that mother had failed to provide basic necessities for the children for more than two years, not just during her incarceration. See R.C. 2151.414(E)(14).

Section 2151.414(E)(14) requires a parent's unwillingness, not merely inability, to provide necessities or prevent abuse or neglect, but that inability may qualify as another relevant factor under (E)(16).

In Re J.R., Unpublished Decision (1-19-2007) · filed 2007-01-19(E)(14), (E)(16)

Although we are not convinced that Virginia was unwilling to prevent J.R. from suffering physical, emotional, or sexual abuse or physical, emotional, or mental neglect, as required by R.C. 2151.414 (E), the court could have reasonably concluded that she was unable to do so, which would have been another relevant factor. See R.C. 2151.414 (E)(16). In any event, the trial court's findings with respect to the other factors it relied on are supported by clear and convincing evidence and justify its decision to award permanent custody to MCCS.

Poor decisions concerning a danger posed by another person can establish unwillingness to prevent a child from suffering abuse.

In re K.B. · filed 2025-10-31(E)(14)

We have held that poor decisions regarding the danger posed by another will satisfy the findings under R.C. 2151.414(E)(14).

Section 2151.414 requires a clear-and-convincing best-interests finding and permits permanent custody when a legally secure placement cannot be achieved without it.

In Re Kennedy, Unpublished Decision (2-9-2007) · filed 2007-02-09(B)(1), (D)

To grant permanent custody to the state, the juvenile court must determine by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the child's best interests to grant permanent custody. ... We agree with the trial court that Alonzo was in need of a legally secure placement, and that that type of placement could not have been achieved without a grant of permanent custody to HCJFS.

The need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether it can be achieved without granting permanent custody must be proved by clear and convincing evidence; an immediately available home with a parent may make that showing insufficient.

In Re J.W. · filed 2007-04-26(D)(4)

If the testimony of Ms. Dixon, J.W. Sr.’s fiancée, is to be believed, a secure permanent home was immediately available for the child and his father without the granting of PCC of the child. The trial court did not question Ms. Dixon’s credibility, but discounted her resolution of the placement of the child because Ms. Dixon had had a relationship with J.W. Sr. for a period of approximately six months, and the couple had been engaged for only about two weeks as of the date of the final hearing on the PCC motion. The problem with the proof of this factor — R.C. 2151.414(D)(4) — is the primary reason that we hold that the proof of the need for the granting of PCC did not meet the standard of clear and convincing evidence required both by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and by the pertinent Ohio statute.

Section 2151.414(D)(4) requires a juvenile court deciding a child's best interest in a permanent-custody proceeding to consider the child's need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that placement can be achieved without granting permanent custody to the agency.

In Re J.A., Ca2007-09-112 (3-3-2008) · filed 2008-03-03(D)(4)

R.C. 2151.414 (D) provides that in considering the best interest of a child in a permanent custody hearing, "the court shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to the following: ... "(4) The child's need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to the agency; ... After reviewing the record, including the facts above, we find that the juvenile court did not err in finding that the children's need for legally secure permanent placement cannot be met without granting permanent custody to WCCS.

Section 2151.414(D)(4) permits a court to consider whether returning a child to a parent can provide a legally secure permanent placement without granting permanent custody to an agency.

In Re Sox, 07 Ma 179 (6-13-2008) · filed 2008-06-13(D)(4)

Appellants take issue with this conclusion, arguing that a trial court should not consider whether custody with a parent is a legally secure permanent placement under the statute. But this argument is contrary to both Supreme Court precedent and the statutory scheme. First, in In re Schaefer , 111 Ohio St.3d 498 , 2006-Ohio-5513 , at ¶ 62 , the Ohio Supreme Court specifically considered whether permanent placement with a parent was a possibility when reviewing the trial court's decision regarding the best interests of the child. Second, the only entity which can move for permanent custody of a child is an agency, see R.C. 2121.413, so the only way a court can ensure that a child is legally secured in permanent placement is either to grant custody to the parent or to the agency. Thus, it was completely appropriate for the court to consider whether it was possible to legally secure placement of the child without a grant of permanent custody to the Board when deciding what was in the child's best interests.

Section 2151.414(D) requires the court to consider the child's relationships, wishes, custodial history, and need for a legally secure permanent placement, but it need not find that agency custody is the only secure placement.

In Re M.M., 22872 (11-26-2008) · filed 2008-11-26(D)

The trial court clearly considered M.M.'s relationships with her foster parents, aunt, and cousin, the guardian ad litem's recommendation, M.M.'s custodial history, and her need for a secure placement, as required by R.C. 2151.414 (D). ... Contrary to Richards' assertion, the court was not required to conclude that granting custody to MCCS was the only secure placement; it was charged with determining the most secure placement, which is the one that would best serve M.M.'s interests.

Under division (D)(1)(d), a willing relative is relevant to whether a child can obtain a legally secure placement without an award of permanent custody to the agency, but the relative must be suitable.

In re M.S. · filed 2012-07-09(D)(1)(d)

“The existence of a suitable relative willing to care for the [children] would certainly be relevant to the court’s best interest determination[.]” In re M.O., 4th Dist. No. 10CA3189, 2011-Ohio-2011, ¶ 13. Specifically, this consideration applies “to whether the child's need for a legally secure placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to the agency under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(d).” Id. The evidence indicates, however, that L.D. was not a “suitable” relative to care for the Children. ... Considering this evidence, L.D.’s willingness to assume custody of the Children does not undermine the trial court’s finding that a legally secure placement for the Children cannot be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to Children Services.

In deciding a child's best interest, the court must consider the child's need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that placement can be achieved without granting permanent custody to the agency, but this is only one factor among all relevant factors.

In re M.J.P.L. · filed 2013-08-05(D)(1)(d)

Given the lack of any progress on the case plan, appellant's failure to visit the child and her past history of failing to remedy problems, we find no error in the trial court's determination that M.J.P.L. is in need of a legally secure placement which cannot be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to the agency. ... Moreover, this factor is just one of the enumerated factors a court must consider in determining the best interest of the child. R.C. 2151.414(D)(1). The court considered these other factors along with the need for a legally secure placement, and found the factors together weigh in favor of finding permanent custody in M.J.P.L.'s interest.

A legally secure permanent placement may require permanent agency custody when children need permanence and no relative has demonstrated the ability or desire to meet their significant ongoing medical needs.

In re L.B. · filed 2017-08-02(D)(1)(d)

Because the children had lived in temporary placements for their entire two-year lives, they were in need of a legally secure permanent placement. Because none of their biological relatives had demonstrated an ability and/or desire to provide for their significant, ongoing medical needs on a permanent basis, the trial court reasonably concluded that a legally secure permanent placement would be achieved by placing them in the permanent custody of CSB.

Regular visitation and some case-plan progress do not outweigh a parent’s failure to achieve stable income and safe, suitable housing when assessing the child’s need for a legally secure placement.

In re T.L. · filed 2018-01-16(D)(1)(d)

With respect to the fourth factor, i.e., T.L.'s need for a legally secure placement, the court found that Mother and Father were unable to establish a safe home for the child. ... However, in the two years this case was pending Father made no progress on achieving stability with respect to his income or safe, suitable housing. Accordingly, we reject Father's argument that the best-interest factors weighed towards granting him custody.

A legally secure placement may require permanent custody when continued illegal drug use prevents the parent from remedying removal conditions and the agency offers the child the best chance for a stable family home.

In re B.S. · filed 2019-03-04(D)(1)(d)

This, as the juvenile court noted, was based primarily on Mother's unwillingness or inability to refrain from using illegal drugs prior to, during, and after giving birth to B.S. Therefore, according to the juvenile court, granting WCCS's motion for permanent custody was the best chance for B.S. to achieve the stable family home that he needs. ... After a thorough review of the record, and as noted above, we find the record supports the juvenile court's decision to grant WCCS's motion for permanent custody.

Recent improvements in the parents' circumstances do not establish a legally secure placement when they do not demonstrate the stability or long-term ability required to care safely for a young child.

In re V.J.P. · filed 2021-05-24(D)(1)(d), (E)(11)

While more recent improvements in Mr. Pizzino’s and Ms. Gore’s life circumstances are certainly worthy of acknowledgment and commendation, they do not reflect the stability required to establish a legally secure permanent placement for a young child such as V.P. or a long-term ability to adequately provide for his health, welfare, and safety.

Section 2151.414(D)(1)'s best-interest requirement supported permanent custody where a traumatized child did not trust the mother to protect her, the mother could not provide a suitable home, and permanent custody would provide a legally secure placement.

In re A.W. · filed 2023-04-19(D)(1)

A.W. continued to struggle with mental health and behavioral issues and she did not trust Mother to protect her. ... The trial court reasonably concluded that Mother was not able to provide a suitable home for A.W. and that a legally secure permanent placement would be achieved by placing the child in the permanent custody of CSB.

Section 2151.414(D)(1)(d)'s secure-placement factor supported permanent custody where a father's undocumented status was not itself disqualifying but impeded independent housing, leaving him dependent on a mother who could not safely care for the child.

In re R.B. · filed 2023-09-07(D)(1)(d)

Although the Agency did not consider Father's status as undocumented to be concerning on its own, it remained concerned that his status inhibited him from acquiring independent housing. ... As correctly found by the juvenile court, Roger needs a legally secure placement, and Father has demonstrated that he cannot, or is unwilling to attempt to, provide such an environment for Roger within a reasonable time.

Under section 2151.414(D)(1)(d), a relative who did not file a legal-custody motion was not an available alternative placement when the court determined whether permanency could be achieved without permanent agency custody.

In re A.K.-R.M. · filed 2023-11-20(D)(1)(d)

As discussed, because Grandmother did not file a motion, granting legal custody to her was not an option.

Section 2151.414(D)(1)(d)'s secure-placement factor favored permanent custody where favorable testimony about a mother's progress was outweighed by ongoing severe mental-health problems and inability to provide appropriate care.

In re J.F. · filed 2023-11-27(D)(1)(d)

Although Mother presented some favorable testimony at trial, we find that the juvenile court did not err in concluding that it was outweighed by other evidence of Mother's severe and ongoing mental health problems and her inability to provide appropriate care to James. Accordingly, the juvenile court did not err in finding the best interest factors weighed in favor of awarding permanent custody to the agency.

Section 2151.414(D)(1)(d)'s secure-placement factor favored permanent custody where the father could not provide himself basic utilities and food, the mother's condition impaired her caregiving, and both parents made minimal progress over two and a half years.

In re N.C. · filed 2023-12-11(D)(1)(d)

Father is still financially unable to provide for himself with basic necessities, including utilities and food. Mother’s OCD, while improved, is still affecting her ability to care for her children. ... The children’s need for a legally secure permanent placement cannot be achieved without granting permanent custody to GCJFS.

Section 2151.414(D)(1)(d)'s secure-placement factor favored permanent custody where children had severe medical needs requiring many appointments and constant care that the mother could not independently manage.

In re A.Y.C. · filed 2023-12-13(D)(1)(d)

Both A.Y.C. and E.Y.C. have severe medical needs requiring numerous medical appointments, therapy appointments, and constant care and attention. In addition to attending the necessary appointments, the children’s caregiver must work with the children on various skills outside of appointments to help them develop. As such, the children are indisputably in need of a legally secure permanent placement. The record supports the trial court’s finding that such placement can only be achieved through a grant of permanent custody.

Section 2151.414(D)(1)(d)'s secure-placement factor supported permanent custody where the mother was unemployed, had not engaged in required mental-health or parenting services, and valued her relationship with a cohabiting partner over the child.

In re E.L.B. · filed 2025-01-17(D)(1)(d)

The record supported a finding that the child was in need of a legally secure placement and that such a placement could not be achieved without a grant of custody to GCCS. There was also evidence in the record that Mother had failed to comply with her case plan. At the time of the hearing, she was unemployed, and she had failed to engage in mental health services or parenting classes as required by her case plan. More concerning, she continued to live with Adam. Indeed, she indicated that she valued her relationship with Adam over her relationship with E.L.B.

Section 2151.414(D)(4) weighs in favor of permanent custody when a child needs a legally secure placement and adoption cannot occur without granting custody to the agency.

In the Matter of E.S., Unpublished Decision (5-20-2004) · filed 2004-05-20(D)(4)

Because adoption cannot be achieved without granting permanent custody to FCCS, R.C. 2151.414 (D)(4) weighs against appellant.

Section 2151.414(D)(1)(d) requires the court to consider a child’s need for a legally secure placement and whether that placement is possible without permanent custody.

In re S.D-S · filed 2024-01-25(D)(1)(d)

R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(d) instructs a court to consider a child’s need for a legally secure placement and whether such placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody. ... In light of Mother’s repeated failures over the lengthy proceedings to complete her case plan and address the issues that led to S.D-S.’s removal, it is apparent that S.D-S.’s need for a legally secure placement could not be satisfied other than by a grant of permanent custody to the agency.

A court deciding a child’s best interest must consider whether the child needs a legally secure permanent placement and whether that placement can be achieved without granting an agency permanent custody.

In re Ka.R. · filed 2024-10-29(D)(1)(d)

Consequently, clear and convincing evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the children need a legally secure permanent placement and that they cannot achieve that type of placement without granting the agency permanent custody of the children.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(b) permits an agency to initiate a permanent-custody motion based on presumed abandonment only after the parent has gone 90 days without visiting or contacting the child.

In Re Scullion Children, Unpublished Decision (3-2-2007) · filed 2007-03-02(B)(1)(b)

... We agree with mother as the issue relates to the facts of the instant case. The logical extension of In re: C.W. requires a finding a parent has failed to visit or maintain contact with the child for a period of ninety days before an agency moves for permanent custody on abandonment grounds. ... However, before a department initiates a motion for permanent custody on the grounds of presumed abandonment, we find 90 days must have passed without visit or contact before such motion can be initiated. Accordingly, we find the trial court's finding of abandonment was against the manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence.

Section 2151.414 requires an agency seeking permanent custody to have custody of the child when it files its motion.

Lorain County Children Services v. Keene · filed 1997-03-05

Temporary custody was reestablished on January 3, 1994, one month before LCCS moved for permanent custody. Therefore, Adkins’s reliance on In re Miller (1995), 101 Ohio App.3d 199, 655 N.E.2d 252, the specific language of R.C. 2151.414 requiring that the agency currently have custody of the child, is misplaced.