Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2151.414

Section 2151.414(A)(2) requires a hearing on a permanent custody motion within 120 days after filing unless good cause is shown for delay.

In re K.R. · filed 2023-02-07(A)(2)

The matter had been delayed numerous times, pushing it well-beyond the time frame set forth in R.C. 2151.414(A)(2), which requires, in the absence of "good cause shown," that a hearing on a permanent custody motion occur no later than 120 days after the filing of the motion.

Section 2151.414(A)(2) does not require dismissal for delay when the parent requested and obtained continuances.

In Matter of White, Ct2008-0024 (4-15-2009) · filed 2009-04-15(A)(2)

Appellant claims the trial court erred in not granting her motion to dismiss pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (A)(2). We disagree. ... "The failure of the court to comply with the time periods set forth in division (A)(2) of this section does not affect the authority of the court to issue any order under this chapter and does not provide any basis for attacking the jurisdiction of the court or the validity of any order of the court." ... We concur with the trial court that by appealing to the trial court's discretion and obtaining continuances, appellant cannot now complain about the delay.

A parent who requested and obtained continuances of a permanent-custody hearing cannot invoke the statutory deadlines to complain of the resulting delay.

In Matter of White, Ct2008-0024 (4-30-2009) · filed 2009-04-30(A)(2)

R.C. 2151.414 governs procedures upon the filing of a motion for permanent custody. Subsection (A)(2) states the following: ... "The failure of the court to comply with the time periods set forth in division (A)(2) of this section does not affect the authority of the court to issue any order under this chapter and does not provide any basis for attacking the jurisdiction of the court or the validity of any order of the court." ... We concur with the trial court that by appealing to the trial court's discretion and obtaining continuances, appellant cannot now complain about the delay.

Section 2151.414(A)(2) permits a permanent-custody hearing to be continued beyond the 120-day deadline for good cause, and missing the statutory deadlines does not impair the court’s authority or invalidate its order.

In Re Sheffey · filed 2006-02-10(A)(2)

The court denied the mother’s motion to continue the hearing for permanent custody to allow the public defender to gather evidence. The court denied this motion on the erroneous basis of a time limitation. ... R.C. 2151.414(A)(2), provides; "The court shall hold the hearing scheduled pursuant to division (A)(1) of this section not later than one hundred twenty days after the agency files the motion for permanent custody, except that, for good cause shown, the court may continue the hearing for a reasonable period of time beyond the one-hundred-twenty-day deadline. The court shall issue an order that grants, denies, or otherwise disposes of the motion for permanent custody, and journalize the order, not later than two hundred days after the agency files the motion. ... "The failure of the court to comply with the time periods set forth in division (A)(2) of this section does not affect the authority of the court to issue any order under this chapter and does not provide any basis for attacking the jurisdiction of the court or the validity of any order of the court.”

The permanent-custody deadlines are directory rather than mandatory and do not invalidate a judgment; a litigant seeking to enforce them must pursue a writ of procedendo.

In re M.M. · filed 2014-09-12(A)(2)

The Ohio Supreme Court has stated similar time limits are directory, not mandatory, and such do not provide a basis for attacking the validity of the trial court’s judgment. See In re Davis, 84 Ohio St.3d 520, 1999-Ohio-0419, 705 N.E.2d 1219. A litigant must seek a writ of procedendo against the juvenile court if it does not comply with the statutory time limits.

A juvenile court may deny an indefinite, lengthy continuance of a permanent-custody hearing when the requested delay approaches the statute’s 200-day decision deadline and is not imperative to fair treatment.

In re E.W. · filed 2017-08-14(A)(2)

Mother's rehabilitation program required an additional six months to complete; therefore, a continuance to meet her request would have extended the trial date beyond the 120-day period and near the 200-day statutory requirement for the juvenile court to journalize its ruling on WCCS' motion for permanent custody. ... The continuance sought was indefinite and would require a lengthy delay. Eventually, all parties indicated if the juvenile court denied the parties' requests, they were adequately prepared to proceed. Therefore, a continuance was not imperative to secure fair treatment of the parties and the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by denying the requests.

A court may deny an indefinite continuance pending a parent’s criminal trial when the delay would likely exceed the permanent-custody hearing and decision deadlines and undermine timely permanency for the children.

In re K.K. · filed 2017-12-18(A)(2)

A continuance until Randall completed his criminal trial would have extended the hearing date beyond the 120-day period and likely beyond the 200-day statutory requirement for the juvenile court to journalize its ruling on WCCS' motion for permanent custody. A delay would have been contrary to the overarching goal of juvenile custody laws, i.e., to achieve permanency in children's lives. See In re B.T.H., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2017-06-080, 2017-Ohio-8358, ¶ 30. Therefore, a continuance was not imperative to secure fair treatment of the parties and the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by denying Randall's request.

The permanent-custody hearing deadlines are directory rather than jurisdictional, and a litigant's remedy for delay is a writ of procedendo.

In re N.W. · filed 2022-12-05(A)(2)

Because of this expressive language, this court has determined that the time limitation language in R.C. 2151.414(A)(2) is ‘directory’ rather than mandatory — the language exists ‘for the assurance of the prompt resolution of child custody matters,’ rather than as a jurisdictional perquisite.”

The statutory deadline for a permanent-custody hearing may weigh against granting a further continuance when the motion has already been pending far beyond that deadline.

In re J.C. · filed 2023-03-14(A)(2)

The permanent custody motions had been pending for both children for nearly two years—well past the statutory deadline over 120 days after the filing of the permanent custody motion. See R.C. 2151.414(A)(2). The trial court's decision to deny the continuance was not an abuse of discretion or unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.

Section 2151.414(A)(2) requires a permanent-custody hearing within 120 days, permits a reasonable continuance for good cause, and requires disposition within 200 days after the motion.

In re W.W. · filed 2023-11-15(A)(2)

Pursuant to R.C. §2151.414(A)(2), the juvenile court is required to hold the permanent custody hearing no later than 120 days after the Agency files its motion for permanent custody, “except that for good cause shown,” the court may grant a reasonable continuance, and the court is to dispose of the motion for permanent custody no later than 200 days after the agency files its motion.

A court may deny a continuance when the permanent-custody hearing is already far beyond Section 2151.414(A)(2)'s 120-day deadline.

In re H. L. · filed 2024-04-25(A)(2)

Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(A)(2), the trial court is to hold the PCC hearing no later than 120 days after the agency files the PCC motion except for “good cause” shown for a reasonable continuance. By the time of the December 6, 2022 trial date, the PCC motion had been pending for more than 1160 days.

Section 2151.414(A)(2)'s 120-day hearing and 200-day decision deadlines are nonjurisdictional guidelines, so the court retains authority to rule after they expire.

In re N.A. · filed 2024-08-05(A)(2)

Since the time limits set forth in R.C. 2151.414(A)(2) are not jurisdictional, a trial court retains the authority to issue an order after these specified periods have expired.

Section 2151.414(A)(2) permits a permanent custody hearing beyond the 120-day deadline for good cause, including continuances requested by a parent.

In re J.D. · filed 2022-08-04(A)(2)

Because Mother was responsible for the trial being delayed twice, good cause has been shown as to why the trial court scheduled the trial beyond the statutory limits.

Section 2151.414(A)(2) sets deadlines for a permanent custody hearing and order, but missing those deadlines does not invalidate the order.

In re K.A. · filed 2023-12-06(A)(2)

We have recognized the plain language of the statute and concluded that the juvenile court’s hearing and entry of judgment on a permanent custody motion in excess of the statutory time limits maintain the same validity as those which ... comport with the time parameters.

Only one enumerated subsection (E) factor is required to find that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent.

In re K.V. · filed 2022-12-01(E)

Only one of the enumerated factors under R.C. 2151.414(E) is required for the court to make the finding that “‘the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent.’”

A reasonable-time placement finding requires clear and convincing evidence of only one subsection (E) factor.

In re D.K. · filed 2022-08-24(B)(1)(a), (E)

When making a finding under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a), the court must find, by clear and convincing evidence, that only one of the factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414(E) exists.

One subsection (E) factor proven by clear and convincing evidence requires a finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with the parent within a reasonable time.

In re V.F. · filed 2022-08-25(E)

Any one of these factors, having been found by clear and convincing evidence, required a finding that V.F. could not be placed with Mother within a reasonable time or should not be placed with her. R.C. 2151.414(E).

A juvenile court needs to find only one subsection (E) factor to establish that the child cannot or should not be placed with the parents.

In re B.L. · filed 2022-09-02(E)

With these standards in mind, we will begin our discussion with the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2151.414(E). Notably, the trial court needed only to find that one or more factors applied.

One Section 2151.414(E) factor is sufficient to support a subsection (B)(1)(a) finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

In re C.W. · filed 2020-12-23(B)(1)(a), (E)

A court need only find one (E) factor ... present to support a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent.

Only one subsection (E) factor is needed for an adverse parental-placement finding under subsection (B)(2).

In re L.R.B. · filed 2020-12-11(B)(2), (E)

Notably, only one factor need be found for a court to make an adverse finding under R.C. 2151.414(B)(2).

Section 2151.414(E) requires a trial court to find that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time when any one of its sixteen factors is met.

In re B.G. · filed 2020-04-10(E)

R.C. 2151.414(E) requires a trial court to find that a child cannot be placed with either of the child’s parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent if any one of sixteen factors are met.

Only one Section 2151.414(E) factor must be supported by clear and convincing evidence to establish the reasonable-time placement ground in subsection (B)(1)(a).

In re A.T. · filed 2020-05-04(B)(1)(a), (E)

In order for ... R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) to be grounds for granting a motion for permanent custody, only one of the factors listed in R.C. 2151.414(E) needs to be applicable and supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Any one applicable Section 2151.414(E) factor requires a finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

In re T.S. · filed 2020-05-15(E)

As a preliminary matter, we note that R.C. 2151.414(E) directs a trial court to enter a finding that the children cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent when it finds any of the enumerated factors applicable.

Only one subsection (E) factor must be present to find that a child should not be placed with the parents.

In re S.Z. · filed 2020-06-26(E)

“Only one of the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(E) must be present to make a finding that the child should not be placed with the parents.”

The plain language of subsection (E) requires only one factor to satisfy the cannot-or-should-not-be-placed portion of the permanent-custody test.

In re S.H. · filed 2020-06-29(E)

Therefore, the plain language of the statute only requires a finding of one R.C. 2151.414(E) factor to satisfy this part of the test.

Only one supported subsection (E) factor is necessary for a cannot-or-should-not-be-placed finding, so unsupported alternative factors do not require reversal.

In re E.C. · filed 2020-07-23(E)

Because we need to find that clear and convincing evidence supported only one of the R.C. 2151.414(E) factors, and we find that clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court’s finding pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) and (2), the trial court did not err in finding that the children could not be returned to mother’s custody within a reasonable time or should not be placed with mother.

If one or more subsection (E) conditions exists, the court must enter a subsection (B)(1)(a) finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent.

In re C. Children · filed 2020-03-13(B)(1)(a), (E)

And if the court discovers one or more of the conditions exists, then the court must enter a finding under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a).

One subsection (E) factor alone supports a finding that a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

In re J.J. · filed 2020-03-16(E)

The existence of one factor alone will support a finding that the child cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable time.

A juvenile court needs only one Section 2151.414(E) factor to require a finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

In re S.H. · filed 2019-09-05(E)

Only one of the enumerated factors under R.C. 2151.414(E) is required to exist for the court to make the finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. ... In fact, once the court has properly determined that one of the enumerated factors exist, the court is required to enter a finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with either of his parents within a reasonable period of time.

One Section 2151.414(E) factor is sufficient to support the reasonable-time placement ground in subsection (B)(1)(a), including a subsection (E)(1) failure to remedy the conditions causing removal.

In re M.R. · filed 2019-09-06(B)(1)(a), (E)(1)

Although the juvenile court found many R.C. 2151.414(E) factors to support its holding, it needed to only find one. ... Although the juvenile court’s finding pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) satisfied the requirements of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a), the court made further findings in the record by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(E)(2) and (4).

One subsection (E) factor alone supports a finding that a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

In re G.O. · filed 2019-10-31(E)

The existence of one factor alone will support a finding that the child cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable time.

Only one subsection (E) factor is needed to support a subsection (B)(1)(a) conclusion that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent.

In re T.Y. · filed 2019-11-22(B)(1)(a), (E)

Mother argues against all of the trial court’s findings, but because only one factor is needed to support the trial court’s conclusion under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a), we will address mother’s arguments only as they pertain to R.C. 2151.414(E)(4) and (10).

A finding that one condition in Section 2151.414(B)(1) applies is sufficient, so a twelve-of-twenty-two-month finding eliminates the need also to find that the child cannot be placed with a parent, is abandoned, or is orphaned.

In re B.E. · filed 2014-07-14(B)(1)(d)

R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) requires the trial court to find the existence of only one of the four factors. In re J.P.B., 4th Dist. Washington No. 12CA34, 2013-Ohio-787, ¶33, citing In re W.W., 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C–110363 and C–110402, 2011–Ohio–4912, ¶54 (observing that if one of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) factors exists, court need not find that other (B)(1) factors apply). Consequently, when considering a R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) permanent custody motion, a trial need not also find that (1) the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, (2) the child is abandoned, or (3) the child is orphaned.

Section 2151.414(E) requires a court that finds any enumerated factor to find that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent.

In Re A. W., 08ca009366 (4-20-2009) · filed 2009-04-20(E)

Father contends that, rather than finding that A.W. could not be placed in his care within a reasonable time, the trial court instead should have granted an extension of temporary custody to allow him more time to work toward reunification with A.W. Despite Father's suggestion to the contrary, the trial court had no discretion to make an alternate finding. R.C. 2151.414 (E) provides that if the court finds that one of the enumerated factors exists, it "shall enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent[.]" (Emphasis added.)

Section 2151.414(E) requires only a positive finding that one of its enumerated factors exists before the court may determine that a child cannot be placed with a parent.

In Re Allen, Unpublished Decision (2-9-1999) · filed 1999-02-09(E)

Because R.C. 2151.414 (E) merely requires a positive finding as to one of the enumerated factors, the trial court's finding under R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) disposes of this entire case on its merits.

Under subsection (E), one enumerated condition is sufficient to find that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent.

In the Matter of Cuichta, Unpublished Decision (3-23-1999) · filed 1999-03-23(E)

Similarly, the trial court clearly established in its entry the existence of numerous factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414 (E) thereby meeting its burden as related to the inability to place the child in the home of either parent. While the statute only requires the existence of one enumerated factor in order to find that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent, the trial court has clearly found that multiple factors were proven at trial.

Section 2151.414(E) makes a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time mandatory when any listed parental-condition factor exists as to each parent; the factors are not balanced against one another.

In Re Moore, Unpublished Decision (12-15-1999) · filed 1999-12-15(E)

The factors in R.C. 2151.414 (E) are not balanced against one another. The existence, with respect to each parent, of any of the factors mandates entry of a finding that the children cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. R.C. 2151.414 (E).

Section 2151.414(E) requires only one of its listed parental circumstances to be established before the court finds that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

In the Matter of McCormick, Unpublished Decision (1-7-2000) · filed 2000-01-07(E)

Although we do not believe that this evidence was sufficient to satisfy the second alternative circumstance, the statute only required that one alternative circumstance be met, and as we discussed supra , there was evidence to meet the first alternative circumstance.

Section 2151.414(E) requires a juvenile court to find that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent when any enumerated factor is present and supported by clear and convincing evidence.

In Re Gregory, Unpublished Decision (4-3-2000) · filed 2000-04-03(E)

The trial court was required to find that the children cannot or should not be placed with appellant if any of the factors were present. R.C. 2151.414 (E); see, also, In re William S. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 95 , syllabus. ... We find that the trial court made its findings according to the statutory guidelines of R.C. 2151.414 and these findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Section 2151.414(E) requires the court to find that a child cannot be placed with a parent when any statutory condition exists as to that parent.

In the Matter of Austin Mayle, Unpublished Decision (7-27-2000) · filed 2000-07-27(E)

The clear import of R.C. 2151.414 (E) is that it is mandatory on the court to decide that a child cannot be placed with his parent when any of the * * * conditions exist as to the parent. The intent of the legislature was to eliminate any discretion on the part of the court when one of the conditions exists.

Section 2151.414(E) requires the court to find that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent when any enumerated statutory factor is established.

In Re Lusk, Unpublished Decision (11-27-2000) · filed 2000-11-27(E)

When making its determination, the trial court must consider all relevant evidence. If the trial court finds that any of the R.C. 2151.414 (E) statutory factors are present, the trial court must find that the child cannot or should not be placed with the parent.

Section 2151.414(E) requires a finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time if any listed factor applies.

In the Matter of Thompson, Unpublished Decision (12-11-2000) · filed 2000-12-11(E)

The trial court is required to enter a finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time if any factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414 (E) apply.

A failure to establish reasonable reunification efforts under section 2151.414(E)(1) does not defeat a parental-placement finding supported by another enumerated factor.

In Re French, Unpublished Decision (1-31-2001) · filed 2001-01-31(E)

Even assuming that CSB's efforts after Sharon's incarceration fell short of "reasonable case planning and diligent efforts by the agency to assist the [parent] to remedy the problems that initially caused the child to be placed outside the home," R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1), that would only negate one of the sixteen circumstances enumerated in R.C. 2151.414 (E). Any one of those circumstances requires the court to find that the child cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable time.

Clear and convincing proof of any one enumerated factor as to each parent requires a finding under section 2151.414(E) that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

In the Matter of Hatcher, Unpublished Decision (6-7-2001) · filed 2001-06-07(E)

If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that one or more of the listed factors following R.C. 2151.414 (E) exist as to each of the child's parents, the court shall enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent.

Clear and convincing evidence supporting Section 2151.414(E)(1) makes it unnecessary to establish the separate lack-of-commitment factor in Section 2151.414(E)(4).

In Re Evancic, Unpublished Decision (7-30-2001) · filed 2001-07-30(E)(1), (E)(4)

Because the juvenile court's judgment regarding R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) was supported by clear and convincing evidence, we need not address whether there was evidence to support the existence of the factor listed in R.C. 2151.414 (E)(4).

Section 2151.414(E) requires a finding against placement with either parent when clear and convincing evidence establishes one or more enumerated factors as to each parent.

In Re Moore, Unpublished Decision (9-26-2001) · filed 2001-09-26(E)

If a juvenile court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that one or more of the factors in R.C. 2151.414 (E) exist as to each of the child's parents, then the court must find that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent.

Section 2151.414(E) makes a finding against parental placement mandatory when clear and convincing evidence establishes any enumerated condition as to the parent.

In Re King-Bolen, Unpublished Decision (10-10-2001) · filed 2001-10-10(E)

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

Section 2151.414(E) requires only one listed factor to support a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

In Re Dustin S., Unpublished Decision (10-19-2001) · filed 2001-10-19(E)

As indicated above, R.C. 2151.414 (E) sets forth sixteen factors upon which the trial court may rely in making a finding that a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. In making such a finding, the trial court need only find that one of the factors exists, although it may base its finding on more than one, if applicable.

Section 2151.414(E) requires consideration of all relevant evidence and mandates a finding against parental placement when clear and convincing evidence establishes any one of the sixteen statutory factors.

In Re Christopher D., Unpublished Decision (11-2-2001) · filed 2001-11-02(E)

R.C. 2151.414 (E) provides that, in determining whether or not a child can or should be placed with a parent within a reasonable time, the court shall consider all relevant evidence. If, however, the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that any one of sixteen factors listed in the statute exist, the court must find that the child cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable time.

The parental-placement inquiry requires only one subsection (E) factor for each parent, and different factors may establish the required finding for the mother and father.

In Re Meeker, Unpublished Decision (12-19-2001) · filed 2001-12-19(E)

The trial court found that several factors were present in relation to Destiny's parents, however, because the court only needed to find one factor present for each parent, we will limit our discussion to R.C. 2151.414 (E)(11), as to Appellant, and (E)(4), as to Nathan Meeker.

A lack-of-commitment finding under Section 2151.414(E)(4) does not require an additional failure-to-remedy finding under Section 2151.414(E)(1).

In the Matter of Smith, Unpublished Decision (4-12-2002) · filed 2002-04-12(E)(1), (E)(4)

Since the court in this case made a finding under R.C. 2151.414 (E)(4), it did not have to also find that the parents repeatedly failed to substantially remedy conditions, notwithstanding "reasonable case planning and diligent efforts" by the agency.

Only one section 2151.414(E) condition is needed, and although subsection (E)(1) requires a case plan and time to remedy the removal condition, the other subsection (E) conditions require neither.

In Matter of Andrew B., Unpublished Decision (8-2-2002) · filed 2002-08-02(E)

When relying on R.C. 2151.414 as the basis for its grant of a motion for permanent custody, a court needs to find the existence of only one of the conditions listed in R.C. 2151.414 (E). In re Wingo (2001), 143 Ohio App.3d 652 , 659 . If R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) is the basis for the court's finding, the agency must have provided a case plan and time to remedy the condition that led to the removal of the child from the household. The other factors listed in R.C. 2151.414 (E) require neither the formulation of a case plan nor the time to remedy the condition.

Proof by clear and convincing evidence of any one factor in section 2151.414(E) requires a finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

In Re Bennett, Unpublished Decision (5-22-2002) · filed 2002-05-22(E)

R.C. 2151.414 (E) also contains separate factors, the presence of any one of which requires the court, upon a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the factor is present or occurred in the case, to enter a finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

A challenge to the agency-efforts finding under section 2151.414(E)(1) cannot defeat the placement determination when clear and convincing evidence supports another subsection (E) factor.

In Re Chianna C., Unpublished Decision (6-7-2002) · filed 2002-06-07(E)

In support of that conclusion, however, the trial court not only made the R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) finding, but also made findings pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (E)(2) and (4). Clear and convincing evidence of but one of the R.C. 2151.414 (E) factors is necessary to support a finding that the children cannot and should not be placed with either parent.

The existence of any one condition listed in subsection (E) requires a finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent.

In the Matter of Barnhart, Unpublished Decision (10-30-2002) · filed 2002-10-30(E)

{¶ 42} After our review of the record in the case at bar, we find ample competent, credible evidence to support the trial court's decision that Christopher cannot be placed with appellant within a reasonable time or should not be placed with appellant. R.C. 2151.414 (E) requires the trial court to find that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent if the trial court finds the existence of any one of the conditions listed in R.C. 2151.414 (E).

Under § 2151.414(E), clear and convincing proof of any one listed factor requires a finding that the child cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable time.

In Re: Baby Girl W., Unpublished Decision (4-25-2003) · filed 2003-04-25(E)

If, however, the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that any one of sixteen factors listed in the statute exist, the court must find that the child cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable time.

A parent's prior convictions and inability to control anger may independently support a reasonable-time placement finding under division (E)(16), even if reliance on the failure-to-remedy factor in division (E)(1) was erroneous.

In Re Rinaldi, Unpublished Decision (5-19-2003) · filed 2003-05-19(E)(16)

However, even if the trial court erred in relying on R.C. 2151.414 (1), the error is harmless as the trial court also listed other relevant factors such as Appellant's prior convictions and his inability to control his anger pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (E)(16) which are supported by the record by clear and convincing evidence as discussed in detail above.

The reasonable-time placement ground in division (B)(1)(a) and the twelve-of-twenty-two-month ground in division (B)(1)(d) are alternatives, either of which is independently sufficient with a best-interest finding to support permanent custody.

In Re lowry/owens Children, Unpublished Decision (6-16-2003) · filed 2003-06-16(B)(1)(a), (B)(1)(d)

Those findings are alternate findings under R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1). (R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d) and (a) respectively) Either of those findings, if supported by the evidence, would have been sufficient in and of itself to base a grant of permanent custody pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1).

Subsection (E)(1) is not an independent reasonable-efforts requirement; it is a factor that, when established, requires a finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent.

In Re L.a, Unpublished Decision (9-10-2003) · filed 2003-09-10(E)(1)

Appellant misunderstands the purpose of R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) through (16). R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) is not a "requirement." Rather, R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) is a "factor" that, if found to exist, requires the trial court to make a finding that a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent.

A court must find that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent if clear and convincing evidence establishes at least one subsection (E) factor as to each parent.

In Matter of Lewis, Unpublished Decision (9-25-2003) · filed 2003-09-25(E)

We note that pursuant to the plain language of R.C. 2151.414 (E), the court "shall enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent" if the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that "one or more" of the factors exist as to each of the child's parents. Accordingly, if there is some competent, credible evidence to support the trial court's finding as to at least one of the factors enumerated in R.C. 2151.414 (E), as to each of Katelyn's parents, we must uphold the trial court's decision.

If one or more section 2151.414(E) factors exists as to each parent, the court must find that the child cannot be placed with the parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with them.

In Re McColloch, Unpublished Decision (10-24-2003) · filed 2003-10-24(E)

R.C. 2151.414 (E) provides a list of sixteen factors which a court must use to determine whether a child can be placed with his natural parents within a reasonable time, if ever. If the court determines that one or more of these factors exist as to each of the child's parents, the court must find that either the child cannot be placed with his parents within a reasonable time or that the child should never be placed with either parent.

The existence of any one section 2151.414(E) factor is enough to support a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

In the Matter of Edgell, Unpublished Decision (11-12-2003) · filed 2003-11-12(E)

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

Section 2151.414(E)(1) independently supports a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent, so a potential error under (E)(2) is harmless when ample evidence establishes (E)(1).

In Re Link, Unpublished Decision (1-27-2006) · filed 2006-01-27(E)(1)

{¶ 47} The father additionally asserts that the court's R.C. 2151.414 (E)(2) finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence. He contends that the evidence fails to show that he has a chronic and severe mental or emotional illness or substance abuse. Assuming, arguendo, that the court's finding is not supported by the manifest weight of the evidence, we believe that in light of the evidence adduced at trial, any error constitutes harmless error. While the court referred to R.C. 2151.414 (E)(2) in finding that the children cannot or should not be returned to either parent, it also relied upon R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) to make this finding. That section does not require a finding regarding chronic or severe mental illness or substance abuse. Therefore, even if we assume the father's argument to be correct, the error is harmless because ample evidence exists regarding the R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1) factor.

Section 2151.414(E) requires proof of only one enumerated condition, making consideration of the remaining conditions unnecessary.

In Re Jason S., Unpublished Decision (2-17-2006) · filed 2006-02-17(E)

Furthermore, because one of the enumerated conditions existed, it was unnecessary for the juvenile court to address any of the other 15 conditions listed in R.C. 2151.414 (E) as they related to appellant.

Section 2151.414(E)(4), (13), (14), and (16) permits a finding that the statutory parental-placement factors exist when a parent's waiver and admissions, together with evidence of the parent's incarcerations, provide clear and convincing evidence.

In Matter of Isreal Y., L-07-1030 (7-16-2007) · filed 2007-07-16(E)(4), (13), (14), and (16)

Based on appellant's waiver and admissions, and the evidence presented to the juvenile court regarding appellant's incarcerations, we find that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in determining that there was clear and convincing evidence that the statutory elements of R.C. 2151.414 (E) (4), (13), (14), and (16) existed in this case, and that it was in the child's best interest to have permanent custody awarded to L.C.C.S.B.

Section 2151.414(E) requires only one listed condition to support a finding that a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

In Matter of Henry James M., F-07-006 (6-8-2007) · filed 2007-06-08(E)

Because the existence of only one of the conditions set forth in R.C. 2151.414 (E) is necessary to a finding that a child cannot be placed with his parent within a reasonable time, we will not address the argument made by appellant with regard to R.C. 2151.414 (E)(11).

Section 2151.414(E) requires a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time when clear and convincing evidence establishes any one listed factor; failure to remedy the removal conditions or a prior involuntary termination can each suffice apart from mental illness.

In Re H.M.C., Unpublished Decision (9-7-2007) · filed 2007-09-07(E)(1), (2), and (11)

The existence of a single factor will support a finding that a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time. ... Here, the trial court found that R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1), (2), and (11) applied. Thus, Appellant's assertion that the trial court relied solely upon her mental illness in deciding to award ACCS permanent custody is meritless. The court also looked to her failure to remedy the conditions that caused the children's removal, i.e., her failure to control her illness through prescribed medication and treatment, and the involuntary termination of her parental rights with respect to another child. Either one of these factors, standing alone, supports the trial court's finding that the children cannot or should not be returned to Appellant within a reasonable time.

Section 2151.414(E) requires a juvenile court to find that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent when the evidence establishes any one of the listed factors.

In Re M. A., Unpublished Decision (9-12-2007) · filed 2007-09-12(E)

Although it is not necessary for this Court to also address the propriety of the trial court's finding under R.C. 2151.414 (E)(1), as the trial court was required to find only one factor under R.C. 2151.414 (E) to support its decision, there was ample evidence to support the trial court's finding that Mother had failed to remedy the conditions that had caused the removal of M.A. from her home. ... Consequently, the trial court was required by R.C. 2151.414 (E) to find that M.A. could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with them.

Section 2151.414(E) requires only one listed factor to support a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent under subsection (B)(1)(a).

In Re Lawson, 9-06-67 (9-24-2007) · filed 2007-09-24(E), (E)(11), (B)(1)(a)

Under R.C. 2151.414 (E), the court need find only one of the listed factors to make a finding that the child cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable time or that the child cannot be placed with the parent under R.C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(a).

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

In Re Gibbs Children, 2007 Ca 00322 (4-14-2008) · filed 2008-04-14(E)

A trial court may base its decision that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time upon the existence of any one of the R.C. 2151.414 (E) factors. The existence of one factor alone will support a finding that the child cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable time. See In re: William S. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 95 , 661 N.E.2d 738 ; In re: Hurlow (Sept. 21, 1998), Gallia App. No. 98 CA 6, unreported; In re: Butcher (Apr. 10, 1991), Athens App. No. 1470, unreported.

Section 2151.414(E) permits a court to find that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time based on any one of the listed factors.

In Re Gibbs, 2007 Ca 00304 (3-24-2008) · filed 2008-03-24(E)

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

Section 2151.414(E) allows a court to find that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time when any one of the listed factors exists.

In Re Tyler C., L-07-1159 (5-9-2008) · filed 2008-05-09(E)

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

Any one of the factors in § 2151.414(E), standing alone, supports a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

In re A.S. · filed 2011-03-02(E)

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

Section 2151.414(E) requires only one of its enumerated factors to support a finding that a child cannot be reunified with the parents within a reasonable time.

In re D.W. · filed 2013-01-31(E)

R.C. 2151.414(E) sets forth the factors a trial court is to consider in determining whether a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with the parents. The existence of one factor alone will support a finding that the child cannot be reunified with the parents within a reasonable time.

Section 2151.414(E) requires a court to find that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent when clear and convincing evidence establishes any one statutory factor.

In re P.G. · filed 2013-01-16(E)

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

Under R.C. 2151.414(E), any one statutory factor is sufficient to establish that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time, and factors (E)(1), (2), (4), and (14) are supported where the parent fails to remedy the conditions causing removal, cannot provide an adequate home because of chronic mental illness and chemical dependency, lacks commitment to the child, and is unwilling to provide the child's basic needs.

In re A.C. · filed 2013-05-02(E)(1), (E)(2), (E)(4), (E)(14)

However, the existence of any one of these factors is sufficient to determine that a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable period of time. ... The testimony presented at the permanent custody hearing established that appellant failed to substantially remedy the conditions that led to A.C.’s removal and that appellant’s chronic mental health condition and chemical dependency makes her unable to provide an adequate permanent home. Accordingly, clear and convincing evidence was presented to support the trial court’s decision that factors (1) and (2) of R.C. 2151.414(E) existed. ... The testimony presented at the permanent custody hearing established that appellant demonstrated a lack of commitment toward A.C. by failing to visit with A.C., failing to maintain an adequate permanent home, and being unwilling to provide for A.C.’s basic needs. Accordingly, clear and convincing evidence was presented to support the trial court’s decision that factors (4) and (14) of R.C. 2151.414(E) existed.

Only one best-interest factor under R.C. 2151.414(D) must favor permanent custody for a court to award permanent custody to a proper agency.

In re J.T. · filed 2013-05-23(D)

This court has consistently held that only one of the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D) needs to be resolved in favor of the award of permanent custody in order for the court to award permanent custody to a proper agency.

The existence of any one factor in § 2151.414(E) supports a finding that a child cannot be reunified with the parent within a reasonable time.

In re S.G. · filed 2014-03-20(E)

R.C. 2151.414(E) sets forth the factors a trial court is to consider in determining whether a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with the parents. The existence of one factor alone will support a finding that the child cannot be reunified with the parent within a reasonable time. See In re: William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95, 1996-Ohio-182, 661 N.E.2d 738.

The existence of any one factor under Section 2151.414(E) is sufficient to require a finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with a parent, so an unchallenged alternative factor defeats a claim of prejudice as to another factor.

In re R.L. · filed 2014-07-16(E)

Pursuant to the plain language of the statute, the existence of only one of the factors under R.C. 2151.414(E) is sufficient to determine that a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time. See R.C. 2151.414 (E). (“If the court determines * * * that one or more of the following exist as to each of the child’s parents, the court shall enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent.”) (Emphasis added.) To demonstrate reversible error, the parents must demonstrate not only trial court error, but prejudice resulting from that error as well. In re A.S., 9th Dist. Lorain Nos. 14CA010532, 14CA010534, 2014-Ohio-2458, ¶ 11. Even assuming merit in the parents’ challenge to R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), the trial court’s second and alternative finding under R.C. 2151.414(E)(2) would stand.

The existence of any one Section 2151.414(E) factor supports a mandatory finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with the parent within a reasonable time.

In re C. Children · filed 2015-11-09(E)

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

Any one subsection (E) factor establishes that a child cannot or should not be placed with the parents within a reasonable time.

In re T.S. · filed 2015-11-24(B)(1)(a)

Under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a), the applicability of “any one” of the (E) factors establishes a finding that the child cannot be placed with her parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with her parents.

The existence of any one Section 2151.414(E) factor supports a cannot-or-should-not-be-placed finding.

In re S.W. · filed 2017-03-06(E)

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

Section 2151.414(E) requires a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent when clear and convincing evidence establishes at least one enumerated factor as to each parent.

In re A.S. · filed 2017-05-17(E)

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

Any one factor under subsection (E) is sufficient to support a finding that a child cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable time.

In re N.R. · filed 2017-06-12(E)

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

Any one factor under subsection (E) is sufficient to support a finding that a child cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable time.

In re N.C.-L · filed 2017-06-12(E)

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

Any one factor under subsection (E) is sufficient to support a finding that a child cannot be placed with the parent within a reasonable time.

In re N.C. · filed 2017-06-12(E)

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

The existence of any single factor under subsection (E) is sufficient to determine that a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

In re F.W. · filed 2017-06-30(E)

Relying on the plain language of the statute, this Court has held that “the existence of only one of the factors under R.C. 2151.414(E) is sufficient to determine that a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.”

Section 2151.414(E) requires a reasonable-time placement finding when any one of its enumerated factors is established.

In re Lau.W. · filed 2017-08-29(E)

R.C. 2151.414(E) requires a trial court to find that a child cannot be placed with either of the child’s parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent if any of 16 factors are met. ... Based on these findings the court concluded that an award of permanent custody to LCCS was in the children’s best interests. We find that the trial court’s judgment is supported by competent, credible evidence.

Only one Section 2151.414(E) factor is needed to support a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

In re K.S. · filed 2017-08-29(E)

Only one R.C. 2151.414(E) factor must be present to support a juvenile court’s conclusion that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. The juvenile court here found that three factors apply, and we agree with its conclusion.

A court needs to find only one subsection (E) factor to support a determination that a child cannot or should not be placed with the parents.

In re I.W. · filed 2017-11-09(E)

In reaching its decision to award permanent custody to MCCS, the trial court relied on R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) and (4). A court only needs to find one factor to support its holding.

One subsection (E) factor alone supports a finding that a child cannot be reunified with the parents within a reasonable time.

In re C.S. · filed 2017-11-22(E)

The existence of one R.C. 2151.414(E) factor alone will support a finding that a child cannot be reunified with the parents within a reasonable time.

The existence of any one subsection (E) factor is sufficient to determine that a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

In re Mar.H. · filed 2018-03-09(E)

This court has previously explained that “the existence of only one of the factors under R.C. 2151.414(E) is sufficient to determine that a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.”

When clear and convincing evidence establishes multiple Section 2151.414(E) factors, an error concerning one factor is not prejudicial because any one factor requires the reasonable-time placement finding.

In re D.J. · filed 2018-07-13(E)

In this case, the court found R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) applied (the child cannot or should not be placed with the father within a reasonable time) because it was required to do so if it found there was clear and convincing evidence of any one of the factors listed in R.C. 2151.414(E). The court found the following four factors existed: ... R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), (2), (4), and (16). ... Because the court found there was clear and convincing evidence of four factors, any error regarding one of those factors would not be prejudicial error.

If clear and convincing evidence establishes any one subsection (E) factor, the court must find that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

In re B.R. · filed 2019-02-22(E)

If a court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that any one of the R.C. 2151.414(E) factors exists, the court shall enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent.

A supported division (E)(1) finding is sufficient to determine that a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

In re J.M. · filed 2019-05-03(E)(1)

Under these circumstances, we see no error in the trial court’s finding under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1). That finding itself is sufficient to uphold the trial court’s determination that J.M. cannot be placed with Mother within a reasonable time.

If clear and convincing evidence establishes one or more division (E) factors as to each parent, the court must find that the child cannot or should not be placed with the parents.

In re T.B. · filed 2019-05-07(E)

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

A single division (E) factor supports a finding that a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

In re A.G. · filed 2019-05-08(E)

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

One factor under division (E) is sufficient to support a finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

In re Za.G. · filed 2020-02-05(E)

[A] court need only find one factor under R.C. 2151.414(E) to support a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent * * *.”

A parent may be found to have abandoned children under division (E)(10) when contact was conditionally suspended but the parent made no effort to satisfy the conditions for restoring contact.

In re A.D. · filed 2020-02-18(E)(10)

Consequently, the trial court did not err in finding that Father abandoned his children, given the specific facts of this case.

A supported division (E)(11) finding alone establishes that a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, eliminating the need to review other division (E) factors.

In re A.H. · filed 2020-05-27(E)(11)

Because only one factor need apply under R.C. 2151.414(E) to support a court’s finding that a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time, and because the juvenile court properly found R.C. 2151.414(E)(11) to apply to the case at bar, we decline to review the court’s analysis of the other factors also applicable to Mother.

If any one of division (E)'s sixteen factors is met, the juvenile court must find that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent.

In re P.T. · filed 2020-10-14(E)

R.C. 2151.414(E) requires a juvenile court to find that a child cannot be placed with either of the child’s parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent if any one of sixteen factors are met.

If clear and convincing evidence establishes one or more of division (E)'s sixteen factors, the court must find that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent.

In re L.M. · filed 2021-02-12(E)

If the trial court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that one or more of 16 enumerated factors in R.C. 2151.414(E) exists, then the trial court shall find that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent.

Only one division (E) factor is needed to support the parental-placement determination.

In re Z.C. · filed 2021-03-12(E)

the juvenile court found multiple R.C. 2151.414(E) factors to support its decision, it needed to only find one.

One supported division (E) factor is sufficient to establish division (B)(1)(a)'s parental-placement ground.

In re Cr.V. · filed 2021-03-12(B)(1)(a), (E)(1)

Because only one factor is needed to support the trial court’s conclusion under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a), we will begin and end our analysis with R.C. 2151.414(E)(1).

Once a court finds one or more factors under subsection (E), it must find under subsection (B)(1)(a) that the child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with that parent.

In re C.R. · filed 2021-06-10(B)(1)(a), (E)(1), (2), (4), and (11)

{¶ 39} The evidence introduced by LCCS at trial establishes that mother suffers from longstanding mental health issues that she refuses to acknowledge and address. Flowers testified that mother failed to complete the mental health component of her case plan services, and was not likely to do so within one year of trial. Moreover, LCCS introduced testimony establishing that mother previously had her parental rights involuntarily terminated with respect to C.R.’s older sister, and both Flowers and Wenzlick testified that mother could not provide a legally secure permanent placement for C.R. under R.C. 2151.414(E)(11). The juvenile court agreed. In light of the record before us, we do not find that the trial court lost its way in making its findings under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), (2), (4), and (11). Having made those findings, the juvenile court was required to make the R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) finding that C.R. cannot be placed with mother within a reasonable time or should not be placed with mother. R.C. 2151.414(E).

A trial court needs a supported finding under only one subsection (E) factor to support its permanent-custody decision.

In re S.W. · filed 2021-06-21(E)

{¶ 44} Even if the Section (E)(2) and (4) determinations were not supported by the record, the trial court was only required to make findings under one subsection of R.C. 2151.414(E) to support its decision. In re C.F. at ¶ 50, citing In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95, 661 N.E.2d 738 (1996), syllabus; see also In re. Carlos R., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-07-1194, 2007-Ohio-6358, ¶ 38. Here, the trial court also found that the children could not or should not be placed with mother under Sections (E)(1) and (14), and mother does not challenge the court’s findings under those sections.

A parent’s demonstrated unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home supports a subsection (E)(4) finding, and one properly established subsection (E) factor is sufficient.

In re B.B. · filed 2021-07-06(E)(4)

{¶ 48} Overall, we cannot agree with Mother and Father that they demonstrated commitment to their children when clear and convincing record evidence of their actions showed "an unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home for the child[ren]." ... Because we find R.C. 2151.414(E)(4) to be met, we need not review the trial court's finding under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1).

Any one factor in subsection (E) can support a finding that a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

In re E.H. · filed 2021-08-09(E)

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

If clear and convincing evidence establishes any one factor in subsection (E)(1) through (16) as to each parent, the court must find that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent.

In re L.H. · filed 2021-08-18(E)

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

If clear and convincing evidence establishes any one factor in subsection (E)(1) through (16) as to each parent, the court must find that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent.

In re A.S. · filed 2021-08-31(E)

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

Only one of subsection (B)(1)'s enumerated findings is needed to satisfy the non-best-interest prong of the permanent-custody test.

In re R.K. · filed 2021-09-07(B)(1)

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

A single refusal of medical treatment and evidence that a parent lacked understanding of the child’s condition do not establish that the parent repeatedly withheld medical treatment under subsection (E)(8).

In re C.E. · filed 2021-11-03(E)(8)

{¶28} R.C. 2151.414(E)(8) provides in relevant part: “The parent has repeatedly withheld medical treatment * * * from the child when the parent has the means to provide the treatment * * *.” The juvenile court found that this factor applied because mother had “on multiple occasions” refused to allow the child to receive necessary medical treatment. At trial, the HCJFS caseworker testified that mother did not agree to the surgery to close the child’s eyelids “thinking that it would be hard for [C.E.] to wake up if his eyes were shut.” While this supported the concern by HCJFS that mother lacked understanding of the child’s medical condition, the record does not contain evidence related to mother’s “repeatedly” withholding medical treatment to support a finding under R.C. 2151.414(E)(8).

Clear and convincing evidence of any one subsection (E) factor is sufficient to find that a child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

In re J.H. · filed 2021-11-10(E)

This determination was made based on assessing the factors in R.C. 2151.414(E). A finding by clear and convincing evidence that even one of the factors exists is sufficient.

Clear and convincing evidence of any one subsection (E) factor is sufficient to support a finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with a parent.

In re D.S. · filed 2022-02-24(E)

{¶9} To make this determination, courts assess the factors in R.C. 2151.414(E). A finding by clear and convincing evidence that even one of the factors exists is sufficient. In re H.R.H., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-210071, 2020-Ohio-3160, ¶ 17; In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95, 99, 661 N.E.2d 738 (1996).

Only one enumerated subsection (E) factor need exist for a court to find that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

In re S.N.L. · filed 2022-03-10(E)

Only one of the enumerated factors under R.C. 2151.414(E) is required to exist for the court to make the finding that “‘the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent.’” In re L.W., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107708, 2019-Ohio-1343, ¶ 29, quoting In re Glenn, 139 Ohio App.3d 105, 113, 742 N.E.2d 1210 (8th Dist.2000), and citing In re R.M., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 98065 and 98066, 2012-Ohio-4290, ¶ 14 (the existence of only one factor will support the court’s finding that the child cannot be reunified with the parent within a reasonable time).

Three separate dependency adjudications of the same children satisfy subsection (B)(1)(e)'s first-prong ground for permanent custody.

In re A.C. · filed 2022-03-31(B)(1)(e)

In the interest of fairness to the parties, however, we note that the record supports the juvenile court’s finding that all three children had been adjudicated dependent on three separate occasions. As the agency need only prove one of its alternative first-prong allegations, the evidence supports the juvenile court’s first-prong finding.

A supported twelve-of-twenty-two-month condition can sustain termination of parental rights even when some of the trial court's alternative findings lack evidentiary support.

In re J.A. · filed 2022-04-04(B)(1)(d)

Although James’ assignment of error raise valid questions and some of the trial court’s specific findings were not supported by the evidence, other findings were supported. As long as one of the listed conditions is met, the trial court’s judgment as a whole terminating the parental rights of James was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Only one enumerated subsection (E) factor is required to support a finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

In re L.B. · filed 2022-12-29(B)(1)(a), (E)

Only one of the enumerated factors under R.C. 2151.414(E) is required for the court to make the finding that “‘the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent.’” In re L.W., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107708, 2019-Ohio-1343, ¶ 29, quoting In re Glenn, 139 Ohio App.3d 105, 113, 742 N.E.2d 1210 (8th Dist.2000).

Three prior adjudications of the child as abused, neglected, or dependent establish subsection (B)(1)(e)'s first-prong condition.

In re B.D. · filed 2023-01-26(B)(1)(e)

The evidence at trial established that B.D. has been adjudicated on three prior occasions. Thus, competent, credible evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(e).

Erroneous findings under two subsection (E) factors are harmless when at least one other supported factor independently establishes the first prong.

In re M.S.K. · filed 2023-02-02(E)

There is no support in the record for either of the above findings (with the exception that M.S.K. does have special needs). ... However, because only one factor is necessary to establish the first prong, and we have determined that the court properly made four other findings, these erroneous findings are harmless and may be disregarded.

Only one supported subsection (E) factor is necessary to establish that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

In re K.R. · filed 2023-02-16(E)

Because the court need find only one R.C. 2151.414(E) factor applies, we will not address the additional factors.

A single factor under section 2151.414(E) is sufficient to support a finding that a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

In re A.R. · filed 2023-04-26(E)

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

One factor under Section 2151.414(E) is enough to support the finding that a child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

In re A.W. · filed 2023-10-23(E)

Notably, the trial court “only needed to find that one [R.C. 2151.414(E)] factor applied to support its holding.” In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 2007-Ohio-1104, 862 N.E.2d 816, ¶ 50; In re Za.G., 6th Dist. Williams Nos. WM-19-019, WM-19-020, WM-19-021, WM-19-022, 2020-Ohio-405, ¶ 102. Thus, because the trial court’s finding under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) is not against the manifest weight of the evidence, the court’s finding under R.C. 2151.414(E)(4) need not be considered.

For permanent custody requested in the original complaint, one condition under Section 2151.414(E) is enough to require a finding that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent, and no condition receives greater weight.

In re M.W. · filed 2023-10-26(E)

Under the first requirement of R.C. 2151.353(A)(4), the court must find that the child cannot be or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time under R.C. 2151.414(E). We note that “[o]nly one condition needs to be found to require the court to enter a finding that the children cannot or should not be placed with either parent and no factor is weighted greater than the others.” In re F.M., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110350, 2021-Ohio-3039, at ¶ 23, citing In re S.C., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102350, 2015-Ohio-2410, ¶ 30.

Any one supported factor under Section 2151.414(E) is enough to determine that the child cannot or should not be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

In re C.T. · filed 2024-01-31(E)

The trial court made an additional finding under R.C. 2151.414(E) in support of its conclusion that the children could not be placed with father within a reasonable time or should not be placed with father; father did not contest this finding. Any one of the findings under subsection (E) is sufficient for the trial court to determine the children cannot be placed with father within a reasonable time or should not be placed with father.

One Section 2151.414(E) factor is enough to support finding that children cannot or should not be placed with a parent, so the court need not analyze remaining factors.

In re K.S. · filed 2024-08-29(E)

Since a court need only find one of the (E) factors applies to support a finding that children cannot or should not be placed with their children, we need not analyze the remaining factors pertaining to Mother. R.C. 2151.414(E).

After making any one finding under Section 2151.414(E), the juvenile court must find that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

In re JF · filed 2024-08-29(E)

After making any one of these findings, the juvenile court was required to find that J.F. could not “be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent.” R.C. 2151.414(E).

A finding that any one factor in Section 2151.414(E) exists as to each parent requires the court to find that the child cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time.

In re M.A. · filed 2024-09-06(E)

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

Once one Section 2151.414(E) factor supports finding that the children cannot be returned within a reasonable time, the court need not address additional factors.

In re L.R. · filed 2024-11-27(E)

Because the trial court must only find one factor under R.C. 2151.414(E), we need not address this additional basis for finding that the children could not be returned to Father within a reasonable time.

One supported Section 2151.414(E) factor is sufficient to establish the inability-to-place prong for an original permanent-custody disposition.

In re Y.F. · filed 2024-11-27(E)

Standing alone, this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the first prong of the two-part analysis. See In re M.S.K., 2023-Ohio-316, ¶ 31 (8th Dist.) Accordingly, the juvenile court appropriately found that U.S. could not or should not be placed with Mother within a reasonable time pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(E).

One factor under section 2151.414(E) alone supports a finding that a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time.

In re K.H. · filed 2025-01-03(E)

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

Proof of twelve months of agency temporary custody within a consecutive twenty-two-month period establishes a permanent-custody ground.

In re R.R. · filed 2022-10-18(B)(1)(d)

{¶41} The juvenile court determined that pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), R.R., J.R., and F.A. were in the temporary custody of CCDJFS for twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period. Mother does not dispute this fact. This Court has adopted the position that proof of temporary custody with an agency for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period alone is sufficient to award permanent custody. Matter of O.M., 5th Dist. Coshocton No. 20CA0017, 2021-Ohio-1310, 2021 WL 1424200, ¶ 33 citing In the Matter of A.S., V.S., and Z.S., 5th Dist. Delaware No. 13 CAF 050040, 2013-Ohio-4018.

Proof of twelve months of agency temporary custody within a consecutive twenty-two-month period establishes a permanent-custody ground.

In re J.R. · filed 2022-10-18(B)(1)(d)

{¶41} The juvenile court determined that pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), R.R., J.R., and F.A. were in the temporary custody of CCDJFS for twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period. Mother does not dispute this fact. This Court has adopted the position that proof of temporary custody with an agency for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period alone is sufficient to award permanent custody. Matter of O.M., 5th Dist. Coshocton No. 20CA0017, 2021-Ohio-1310, 2021 WL 1424200, ¶ 33 citing In the Matter of A.S., V.S., and Z.S., 5th Dist. Delaware No. 13 CAF 050040, 2013-Ohio-4018.

Proof of twelve months of agency temporary custody within a consecutive twenty-two-month period establishes a permanent-custody ground.

In re F.A. · filed 2022-10-19(B)(1)(d)

{¶41} The juvenile court determined that pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), R.R., J.R., and F.A. were in the temporary custody of CCDJFS for twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period. Mother does not dispute this fact. This Court has adopted the position that proof of temporary custody with an agency for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period alone is sufficient to award permanent custody. Matter of O.M., 5th Dist. Coshocton No. 20CA0017, 2021-Ohio-1310, 2021 WL 1424200, ¶ 33 citing In the Matter of A.S., V.S., and Z.S., 5th Dist. Delaware No. 13 CAF 050040, 2013-Ohio-4018.

Proof that children were in agency temporary custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period establishes a permanent-custody ground.

In re S.K. · filed 2022-05-25(B)(1)(d)

{¶ 20} Here, R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) applies because the children were in the temporary custody of the Agency in excess of twelve or more months of the consecutive twenty-two-month period. Father does not dispute this fact. This court has adopted the position that proof of temporary custody with an agency for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, standing alone is sufficient to award permanent custody. In the Matter of A.S., V.S., and Z.S., 5th Dist. Delaware No. 13 CAF 050040, 2013-Ohio-4018.

Proof of twelve months of agency temporary custody within a consecutive twenty-two-month period establishes a permanent-custody ground.

In re G.B. · filed 2022-06-07(B)(1)(d)

{¶ 23} Here, R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) applies because G.B. was in the temporary custody of the Agency in excess of twelve or more months of the consecutive twenty-two-month period. Father does not dispute this fact. This court has adopted the position that proof of temporary custody with an agency for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, standing alone is sufficient to award permanent custody. In the Matter of A.S., V.S., and Z.S., 5th Dist. Delaware No. 13 CAF 050040, 2013-Ohio-4018.

A juvenile court may grant permanent custody when clear and convincing evidence establishes twelve months of agency custody within a consecutive twenty-two-month period and that permanent custody serves the child’s best interest.

In re M. Children · filed 2022-03-09(B)(1)(d)

{¶16} A juvenile court can grant permanent custody of a child to a children’s services agency if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the child has been in the custody of the children’s services agency for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, and that permanent custody is in the best interests of the child. See R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d).

Time between filing a permanent-custody motion and the hearing does not count toward Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d)'s twelve-month period, but another statutory ground may support permanent custody when the duration ground is premature.

In re S.B. · filed 2020-12-17(B)(1)(d)

When calculating this time period, however, “the time that passes between the filing of a motion for permanent custody and the permanent-custody hearing does not count toward the 12- ... month period set forth in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d).” ... “If a ground other than R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) exists to support a grant of permanent custody, the agency may move for permanent custody on that other ground.”

Time between filing a permanent-custody motion and the hearing does not count toward Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d)'s twelve-month period, but another statutory ground may support permanent custody when the duration ground is premature.

In re A.G. · filed 2020-12-17(B)(1)(d)

When calculating this time period, however, “the time that passes between the filing of a motion for permanent custody and the permanent-custody hearing does not count toward the 12- ... month period set forth in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d).” ... “If a ground other than R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) exists to support a grant of permanent custody, the agency may move for permanent custody on that other ground.”

Agency custody continues for Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d)'s twelve-of-twenty-two-month calculation during intervening legal-custody arrangements when the agency retains supervisory authority.

In re J.N. · filed 2020-08-21(B)(1)(d)

Because DJFS retained supervisory authority during the periods when Father and Paternal Aunt consecutively were granted legal custody and temporary legal custody, respectively, those intervening custody arrangements did not deprive DJFS of continuing custody as to J.N.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) is satisfied when, at the time of the permanent-custody motion, the child has accumulated twelve months of temporary custody within a consecutive twenty-two-month period; it does not require twenty-two months of agency involvement.

In re N.M.P. (Slip Opinion) · filed 2020-04-16(B)(1)(d)

Instead, we hold that the plain language of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) is satisfied if, at the time the agency moves for permanent custody, the child has been in the temporary custody of one or more children agencies for a total of 12 months out of a consecutive 22-month period.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d)'s twelve-of-twenty-two-month ground is established where children remain in temporary agency custody for over twelve months before the permanent-custody hearing.

In re E.H. · filed 2020-05-06(B)(1)(d)

As found by the trial court, the children have been in appellee's custody for over twelve months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d).

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d) requires twelve months of temporary custody within a consecutive twenty-two-month period before the permanent-custody motion, but does not require that the entire twenty-two-month interval be complete.

In re L.M.B. · filed 2020-05-13(B)(1)(d)

As long as the accrued 12 months fall within a consecutive 22-month period prior to HCJFS moving for permanent custody, the completion of this 22-month interval has no bearing on the 12 of 22 finding.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d)'s twelve-of-twenty-two-month calculation excludes time under protective supervision before the child actually enters the agency's temporary custody.

In re G.Eu.S. · filed 2019-12-30(B)(1)(d)

Thus, we do not count any of the time between that date and the actual removal because G.Eu.S. was not in the temporary custody of the Agency during that time and the statute only counts the time in ... temporary custody.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d)'s twelve-of-twenty-two-month calculation may aggregate separate periods of temporary agency custody within the relevant interval.

In re G.El.S. · filed 2019-12-30(B)(1)(d)

Between September 9, 2016 and October 13, 2016, G.El.S. was in the temporary custody of the Agency. He was again in the temporary custody of the Agency from January 27, 2017 until August 18, 2017. Then from December 22, 2017 until the June 11, 2018, filing date of the motion for permanent custody G.El.S. was once again placed in the temporary custody of the Agency. Thus, G.El.S. was in the temporary custody of the Agency for approximately 13 months out of a twenty-two month period and the trial court found as such.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d)'s twelve-of-twenty-two-month calculation excludes time under protective supervision before the child actually enters the agency's temporary custody.

In re Ar.S. · filed 2019-12-30(B)(1)(d)

between that date and the actual removal because Ar.S. was not in the temporary custody of the Agency during that time and the statute only counts the time in temporary custody.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d)'s twelve-of-twenty-two-month calculation excludes time under protective supervision before the child actually enters the agency's temporary custody.

In re Am.S. · filed 2019-12-30(B)(1)(d)

Thus, we do not count any of the time between that date and the actual removal because Am.S. was not in the temporary custody of the Agency during that time and the statute only counts the time in temporary custody.

For purposes of Section 2151.414(B)(1), a child enters temporary agency custody on the earlier of the adjudication date or sixty days after removal from home.

In re K.W. · filed 2019-07-19(B)(1)

A child is considered to have entered the temporary custody of an agency, for the purposes of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1), on the earlier of the date the child is adjudicated or the date that is 60 days after the removal of the child from the home.

Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d)'s twelve-month calculation includes all periods of agency custody within the relevant twenty-two months, whether custody was continuous or interrupted by a brief return home.

In re J.R. · filed 2019-08-30(B)(1)(d)

In determining whether a child has been in agency custody for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period, a court considers all periods of time in which the child was in agency custody within the relevant 22-month period. This may encompass one continuous period of agency custody or a situation in which a child was placed in agency custody, then was briefly out of agency custody, but then returned to agency custody.

Once Section 2151.414(B)(1)(d)'s twelve-of-twenty-two-month condition is established, a juvenile court may grant permanent custody upon clear and convincing proof that the award serves the child's best interest under subsection (D)(1).

In re A.T. · filed 2019-08-30(B)(1)(d), (D)(1)

Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d), if a child has been in the temporary custody of a children services agency for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period, the juvenile court may grant permanent custody of that child to the agency upon a determination that permanent custody is in the child’s best interest.