191 Ohio opinions name it 5 courts 1991–2026 116 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re RJCgreen2 sentences2026Rather, “‘it is plain that the natural rights of a parent . . . are always subject to the ultimate welfare of the child, which is the polestar or controlling principle to be observed.’” In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100, 106 (1979), quoting In re R.J.C., 300 So.2d 54, 58 (Fla. App. 1974). 2026Rather, “‘it is plain that the natural rights of a parent . . . are always subject to the ultimate welfare of the child, which is the polestar or controlling principle to be observed.’” In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100, 106 (1979), quoting In re R.J.C., 300 So.2d 54 , HIGHLAND, 25CA12 13 58 (Fla. App. 1974). | 59 | 80 |
In re Cunninghamgreen2 sentences2026In re L.G., 2022-Ohio-529, ¶ 49 (8th Dist.). “‘[T]he natural rights of a parent . . . are always subject to the ultimate welfare of the child, which is the polestar or controlling principle to be observed.’” In re L.D., 2017-Ohio-1037, ¶ 29 (8th Dist.), quoting In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100, 106 (1979). 2026In re L.G., 2022-Ohio-529, ¶ 49 (8th Dist.). “‘[T]he natural rights of a parent . . . are always subject to the ultimate welfare of the child, which is the polestar or controlling principle to be observed.’” In re L.D., 2017-Ohio-1037, ¶ 29 (8th Dist.), quoting In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100, 106 (1979). | 56 | 182 |
In re L.D.green2 sentences2026In re L.G., 2022-Ohio-529, ¶ 49 (8th Dist.). “‘[T]he natural rights of a parent . . . are always subject to the ultimate welfare of the child, which is the polestar or controlling principle to be observed.’” In re L.D., 2017-Ohio-1037, ¶ 29 (8th Dist.), quoting In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100, 106 (1979). 2026In re L.G., 2022-Ohio-529, ¶ 49 (8th Dist.). “‘[T]he natural rights of a parent . . . are always subject to the ultimate welfare of the child, which is the polestar or controlling principle to be observed.’” In re L.D., 2017-Ohio-1037, ¶ 29 (8th Dist.), quoting In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100, 106 (1979). | 23 | 64 |
In Re Smithgreen2 sentences2023Id. {¶36} While the rights of a parent to his or her child are fundamental, they are always subject to the ultimate welfare of the child, which is the polestar or controlling principle to be observed. 2023Id. {¶36} While the rights of a parent to his or her child are fundamental, they are always subject to the ultimate welfare of the child, which is the polestar or controlling principle to be observed. | 8 | 13 |
In re J.B.green2 sentences2026However, this right is “‘always subject to the ultimate welfare of the child, which is the polestar or controlling principle to be observed.’” In re L.D., 2017-Ohio-1037, ¶ 29 (8th Dist.), quoting In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100, 106 (1979). “‘All children have the right, if possible, to parenting from either natural or adoptive parents which provides support, care, discipline, protection and motivation.’” In re J.B., 2013-Ohio-1704, ¶ 66 (8th Dist.), quoting In re Hitchcock, 120 Ohio App.3d 88, 102 (8th Dist. 1996). 2024It is “‘always subject to the ultimate welfare of the child, which is the polestar or controlling principle to be observed.’” In re L.D., 2017-Ohio-1037, ¶ 29 (8th Dist.), quoting In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100, 106 (1979) (internal quotation omitted). {¶ 35} Because termination of parental rights is “‘the family law equivalent of the death penalty in a criminal case,’” In re J.B., 2013-Ohio-1704, ¶ 66 (8th Dist.), quoting In re Hoffman, 2002-Ohio-5368, ¶ 14 (cleaned up), it is “an alternative of last resort,” In re Gill, 2002-Ohio-3242 , ¶ 21 (8th Dist.). | 8 | 13 |
In re R.M.green2 sentences2026“The natural rights of a parent * * * are always subject to the ultimate welfare of the child, which is the polestar or controlling principle to be observed.” In re R.M., Jr., 2018-Ohio-395, ¶ 23 (5th Dist.) quoting, In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100, 106 (1979). 2026“The natural rights of a parent * * * are always subject to the ultimate welfare of the child, which is the polestar or controlling principle to be observed.” In re R.M., Jr., 2018-Ohio-395, ¶ 23 (5th Dist.) quoting, In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100, 106 (1979). | 7 | 7 |
In Re Hitchcockgreen2 sentences2026All children have “‘the right, if possible, to parenting from either natural or adoptive parents which provides support, care, discipline, protection and motivation.’” In re J.B., at ¶ 66, quoting In re Hitchcock, 120 Ohio App.3d 88, 102 (8th Dist. 1996). 2026However, this right is “‘always subject to the ultimate welfare of the child, which is the polestar or controlling principle to be observed.’” In re L.D., 2017-Ohio-1037, ¶ 29 (8th Dist.), quoting In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100, 106 (1979). “‘All children have the right, if possible, to parenting from either natural or adoptive parents which provides support, care, discipline, protection and motivation.’” In re J.B., 2013-Ohio-1704, ¶ 66 (8th Dist.), quoting In re Hitchcock, 120 Ohio App.3d 88, 102 (8th Dist. 1996). | 7 | 7 |
In re L.G.green2 sentences2026In re L.G., 2022-Ohio-529, ¶ 49 (8th Dist.). “‘[T]he natural rights of a parent . . . are always subject to the ultimate welfare of the child, which is the polestar or controlling principle to be observed.’” In re L.D., 2017-Ohio-1037, ¶ 29 (8th Dist.), quoting In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100, 106 (1979). 2026In re L.G., 2022-Ohio-529, ¶ 49 (8th Dist.). “‘[T]he natural rights of a parent . . . are always subject to the ultimate welfare of the child, which is the polestar or controlling principle to be observed.’” In re L.D., 2017-Ohio-1037, ¶ 29 (8th Dist.), quoting In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100, 106 (1979). | 5 | 5 |
In re N.B.green2 sentences2026When deciding to terminate an individual’s parental rights, the goal “‘is to make a more stable life for the dependent children and to facilitate adoption to foster permanency for children.’” In re U.B., 2025-Ohio-1265, ¶ 22 (8th Dist.), quoting In re N.B., 2015-Ohio-314, ¶ 67 (8th Dist.). 2025It is “‘always subject to the ultimate welfare of the child, which is the polestar or controlling principle to be observed.’” In re R.H. at id., quoting In re L.D., 2017-Ohio-1037, ¶ 29 (8th Dist.). | 3 | 4 |
In Re B.C.green2 sentences2021Instead, “ ‘the natural rights of a parent * * * are always subject to the ultimate welfare of the child, which is the polestar or controlling principle to be observed.’ ” In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100, 106 , 391 N.E.2d 1034 (1979), quoting In re R.J.C., 300 So.2d 54, 58 (Fla.App.1974); accord In re B.C., 141 Ohio St.3d 55 , 2014-Ohio-4558 , 21 N.E.3d 308, ¶ 20 . {¶34} Furthermore, if a parent is unsuitable, the parent forfeits his or her paramount right to custody. 2021Instead, “ ‘the natural rights of a parent * * * are always subject to the ultimate welfare of the child, which is the polestar or controlling principle to be observed.’ ” In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100, 106 , 391 N.E.2d 1034 (1979), quoting In re R.J.C., 300 So.2d 54, 58 (Fla.App.1974); accord In re B.C., 141 Ohio St.3d 55 , 2014-Ohio-4558 , 21 N.E.3d 308, ¶ 20 . {¶34} Furthermore, if a parent is unsuitable, the parent forfeits his or her paramount right to custody. | 2 | 6 |
Perales v. Ninogreen2 sentences2021E.S., supra at ¶ 26 , citing In re Perales, 52 Ohio St.2d 89, 98-99 , 369 N.E.2d 1047 (1977). 2021E.S., supra at ¶ 26 , citing In re Perales, 52 Ohio St.2d 89, 98-99 , 369 N.E.2d 1047 (1977). | 2 | 3 |
In Re Pryorgreen2 sentences2024Thus, once an abuse, neglect, or dependency case “reaches the disposition phase, the best interest of the child controls.” D.A. at ¶ 11; accord In re Pryor, 86 Ohio App.3d 327, 332 , 620 N.E.2d 973 (4th Dist.1993) (stating that “the primary, if not only, consideration in the disposition of all children’s cases is the best interests and welfare of the child”). 2024Thus, once an abuse, neglect, or dependency case “reaches the disposition phase, the best interest of the child controls.” D.A. at ¶ 11; accord In re Pryor, 86 Ohio App.3d 327, 332 , 620 N.E.2d 973 (4th Dist.1993) (stating that “the primary, if not only, consideration in the disposition of all children’s cases is the best interests and welfare of the child”). | 2 | 2 |
In Re Wisegreen2 sentences2006In re Cunningham (1979), 59 Ohio St.2d 100 , 105 ; In re Wise (1994), 96 Ohio App.3d 619 , 624 . "[T]he natural rights of a parent are * * * always subject to the ultimate welfare of the child, which is the polestar or controlling principle to be observed.'" In re Cunningham, quoting In re R.J.C. 2006In re Cunningham (1979), 59 Ohio St.2d 100 , 105 ; In re Wise (1994), 96 Ohio App.3d 619 , 624 . "[T]he natural rights of a parent are * * * always subject to the ultimate welfare of the child, which is the polestar or controlling principle to be observed.'" In re Cunningham, quoting In re R.J.C. | 1 | 5 |
In Re Hiattgreen2 sentences2012In re Baby Girl Doe, 149 Ohio App.3d 717 , 2002-Ohio-4470 , ¶ 89 (6th Dist.), citing In re Hiatt, 86 Ohio App.3d 716, 725 (4th Dist. 1993). 2010In re Baby Girl Doe, 149 Ohio App.3d 717 , 2002-Ohio-4470 , ¶89, citing In re Hiatt (1993), 86 Ohio App.3d 716, 725 . | 1 | 5 |
In re Hoffmangreen2 sentences2024It is “‘always subject to the ultimate welfare of the child, which is the polestar or controlling principle to be observed.’” In re L.D., 2017-Ohio-1037, ¶ 29 (8th Dist.), quoting In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100, 106 (1979) (internal quotation omitted). {¶ 35} Because termination of parental rights is “‘the family law equivalent of the death penalty in a criminal case,’” In re J.B., 2013-Ohio-1704, ¶ 66 (8th Dist.), quoting In re Hoffman, 2002-Ohio-5368, ¶ 14 (cleaned up), it is “an alternative of last resort,” In re Gill, 2002-Ohio-3242 , ¶ 21 (8th Dist.). 2023Cuyahoga No. 98546, 2013-Ohio-1704, ¶ 66 , quoting In re Hoffman, 97 Ohio St.3d 92 , 2002-Ohio-5368 , 776 N.E.2d 485 , ¶ 14, it is “an alternative of last resort,” In re Gill, 8th Dist. | 1 | 4 |
In re U.B.green1 sentence2026When deciding to terminate an individual’s parental rights, the goal “‘is to make a more stable life for the dependent children and to facilitate adoption to foster permanency for children.’” In re U.B., 2025-Ohio-1265, ¶ 22 (8th Dist.), quoting In re N.B., 2015-Ohio-314, ¶ 67 (8th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
In re N.R.green1 sentence2026“Severing the parent- child relationship in a permanent custody case ‘has been described as “the family law equivalent of the death penalty in a criminal case.”’” In re N.R., 2025-Ohio-2896, ¶ 56 (2d Dist.), quoting Hayes at 48, quoting In re Smith, 77 Ohio App.3d 1, 16 (6th Dist. 1991). | 1 | 1 |
Mathews v. Eldridgegreen1 sentence2026Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976). {¶ 23} However, “the natural rights of a parent are not absolute but are always subject to the ultimate welfare of the child, which is the polestar or controlling principle to be observed.” In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100, 106 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Q.G.green2 sentences2023Thus, “great care must be taken to ensure that due process is used in parental-termination proceedings.” In re Q.G., 170 Ohio App.3d 609 , 2007- Ohio-1312, 868 N.E.2d 713, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.). {¶33} While the rights of a parent to his or her child are fundamental, they are always subject to the ultimate welfare of the child, which is the polestar or controlling principle to be observed. 2023Thus, “great care must be taken to ensure that due process is used in parental-termination proceedings.” In re Q.G., 170 Ohio App.3d 609 , 2007- Ohio-1312, 868 N.E.2d 713, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.). {¶33} While the rights of a parent to his or her child are fundamental, they are always subject to the ultimate welfare of the child, which is the polestar or controlling principle to be observed. | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Lopezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Kayla H.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re Hayes
red
2 sentences2023(Other citations omitted.) “Permanent termination of parental rights has been described as ‘the family law equivalent of the death penalty in a criminal case.’ * * * Therefore, parents ‘must be afforded every procedural and substantive protection the law allows.’ ” In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46, 48 , 679 N.E.2d 680 (1997), quoting In re Smith, 77 Ohio App.3d 1, 16 , 601 N.E.2d 45 (6th Dist.1991). {¶ 38} That said, “ ‘the natural rights of a parent are not absolute, but are always subject to the ultimate welfare of the child, which is the polestar or controlling principle to be observed.’ ” In 2023(Other citations omitted.) “Permanent termination of parental rights has been described as ‘the family law equivalent of the death penalty in a criminal case.’ * * * Therefore, parents ‘must be afforded every procedural and substantive protection the law allows.’ ” In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46, 48 , 679 N.E.2d 680 (1997), quoting In re Smith, 77 Ohio App.3d 1, 16 , 601 N.E.2d 45 (6th Dist.1991). {¶ 38} That said, “ ‘the natural rights of a parent are not absolute, but are always subject to the ultimate welfare of the child, which is the polestar or controlling principle to be observed.’ ” In | 4 | 2010–2023 |
In Re Baby Girl Doe
green
2 sentences2012In re Baby Girl Doe, 149 Ohio App.3d 717 , 2002-Ohio-4470 , ¶ 89 (6th Dist.), citing In re Hiatt, 86 Ohio App.3d 716, 725 (4th Dist. 1993). 2010In re Baby Girl Doe, 149 Ohio App.3d 717 , 2002-Ohio-4470 , ¶89, citing In re Hiatt (1993), 86 Ohio App.3d 716, 725 . | 4 | 2008–2012 |
In re Hoffman
green
2 sentences2023Cuyahoga No. 98546, 2013-Ohio-1704, ¶ 66 , quoting In re Hoffman, 97 Ohio St.3d 92 , 2002-Ohio-5368 , 776 N.E.2d 485 , ¶ 14, it is “an alternative of last resort,” In re Gill, 8th Dist. 2019Cuyahoga No. 98546, 2013-Ohio-1704, ¶ 66 , quoting In re Hoffman, 97 Ohio St.3d 92 , 2002-Ohio-5368 , 776 N.E.2d 485 , ¶ 14, it is “an alternative [of] last resort,” In re Gill, 8th Dist. | 3 | 2018–2023 |
In re C.F.
green
2 sentences2012As such, “parents ‘must be afforded every procedural and substantive protection the law allows.’” In re D.A., 2007-Ohio-1105 , ¶ 10, quoting In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46, 48 , 679 N.E.2d 680 (1997). “‘[I]t is plain that the natural rights of a parent are not absolute, but are always subject to the ultimate welfare of the child, which is the polestar or controlling principle to be observed.’” In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100, 106 , 391 N.E.2d 1034 (1979), quoting In re R.J.C., 300 So.2d 54, 58 (Fla.App.1974). {¶11} “A public or private child-placement agency may file a motion under R.C. 215 2011(Fla.App. 1974), 300 So.2d 54 , 58. {¶18} “A public or private child-placement agency may file a motion under R.C. 2151.413(A) to request permanent custody of a child after a court has committed the child to the temporary custody of the agency pursuant to R.C. 2151.353(A)(2).” In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 , 2007-Ohio-1104 , at ¶22. | 3 | 2010–2012 |
In re Z.C.
green
1 sentence2025It is ‘“always subject to the ultimate welfare of the child, which is the polestar or controlling principle to be observed.”’ In re L.D., 2017-Ohio-1037, ¶ 29 (8th Dist.), quoting In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100, 106 (1979). {¶ 7} “[T]he proper appellate standards of review to apply in cases involving a juvenile court’s decision under R.C. 2151.414 to award permanent custody of a child and to terminate parental rights are the sufficiency-of-the- evidence and/or manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standards, as appropriate depending on the nature of the arguments that are presented by the parti | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In re A.M. (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2025In re T.J., 2024-Ohio-110 , ¶ 14 (5th Dist.); In re A.M., 166 Ohio St.3d 127 , 2020-Ohio-5102 , ¶ 18. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In re D.B.
green
1 sentence2024However, “the natural rights of a parent are not [Cite as In re D.B., 2024-Ohio-1872 .] absolute, but are always subject to the ultimate welfare of the child, which is the polestar or controlling principle to be observed. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re D.A.
green
1 sentence2023Once the case reaches the disposition phase, the best interest of the child controls." In re D.A., 113 Ohio St.3d 88 , 2007-Ohio-1105 , ¶ 11. '"[T]he natural rights of a parent * * * are always subject to the ultimate welfare of the child, which is the polestar or controlling principle to be observed.'" In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100, 106 (1979), quoting In re R.J.C., 300 So.2d 54, 58 (Fla.App.1974). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In re I.R.
green
1 sentence2022In re I.R., 2021-Ohio-3103 , 179 N.E.3d 138 , ¶ 54 (8th Dist.) Also, [b]ecause termination of parental rights is “‘the family law equivalent of the death penalty in a criminal case,’” In re J.B., 8th Dist. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In re E.S.
green
1 sentence2021E.S., supra at ¶ 26 , citing In re Perales, 52 Ohio St.2d 89, 98-99 , 369 N.E.2d 1047 (1977). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In re B.N.R.
neutral
1 sentence2020Montgomery No. 28662, 2020-Ohio-2852, ¶ 13 , quoting In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100, 106 (1979). -9- Case No. 16-19-04 {¶13} In legal custody disputes between parents and nonparents under R.C. 2151.23(A)(2) “parents may be denied custody only if a preponderance of the evidence indicates abandonment, contractual relinquishment of custody, total inability to provide care or support, or that the parent is otherwise unsuitable that is, that an award of custody would be detrimental to the child.” In re Perales, 52 Ohio St.2d 89, 98 (1977), citing Clark at 310. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Troxel v. Granville green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| In re C.R. green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| In re James green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| In Re L.S., 23523 (4-4-2007) neutral | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| In re Adoption of Zschach green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.