140 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2026 74 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 K.M.green2 sentences2026In re L.C., 2024-Ohio-147, ¶¶ 8-9 (11th Dist.); In re G.S., 2025-Ohio-2949 (5th Dist.) (recognizing that in PC cases, failure to object to a Magistrate’s decision results in a plain error analysis on appeal); In re K.M., 2020-Ohio-3602, ¶ 22 (12th Dist.) (holding that, in a permanent custody case, “Mother's challenge is limited to plain error” where “Mother failed to object to the magistrate's decision as required by Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)”). {¶18} Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b) establishes the procedure for objecting to a magistrate's decision and states that failure to object waives the right to assign erro 2026In re L.C., 2024-Ohio-147, ¶¶ 8-9 (11th Dist.); In re G.S., 2025-Ohio-2949 (5th Dist.) (recognizing that in PC cases, failure to object to a Magistrate’s decision results in a plain error analysis on appeal); In re K.M., 2020-Ohio-3602, ¶ 22 (12th Dist.) (holding that, in a permanent custody case, “Mother's challenge is limited to plain error” where “Mother failed to object to the magistrate's decision as required by Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)”). {¶18} Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b) establishes the procedure for objecting to a magistrate's decision and states that failure to object waives the right to assign erro | 3 | 3 |
Santosky v. Kramergreen2 sentences2026We further recognize that “[p]arents have a ‘fundamental liberty interest’ in the care, custody, and management of the child.” Id., quoting Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982.). 2025In re R.K., 2021-Ohio-3074, ¶ 14 (12th Dist.), citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 759 (1982). | 2 | 2 |
In re L.C.green2 sentences2026In re L.C., 2024-Ohio-147, ¶¶ 8-9 (11th Dist.); In re G.S., 2025-Ohio-2949 (5th Dist.) (recognizing that in PC cases, failure to object to a Magistrate’s decision results in a plain error analysis on appeal); In re K.M., 2020-Ohio-3602, ¶ 22 (12th Dist.) (holding that, in a permanent custody case, “Mother's challenge is limited to plain error” where “Mother failed to object to the magistrate's decision as required by Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)”). {¶18} Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b) establishes the procedure for objecting to a magistrate's decision and states that failure to object waives the right to assign erro 2026In re L.C., 2024-Ohio-147, ¶¶ 8-9 (11th Dist.); In re G.S., 2025-Ohio-2949 (5th Dist.) (recognizing that in PC cases, failure to object to a Magistrate’s decision results in a plain error analysis on appeal); In re K.M., 2020-Ohio-3602, ¶ 22 (12th Dist.) (holding that, in a permanent custody case, “Mother's challenge is limited to plain error” where “Mother failed to object to the magistrate's decision as required by Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)”). {¶18} Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b) establishes the procedure for objecting to a magistrate's decision and states that failure to object waives the right to assign erro | 2 | 2 |
In re Murraygreen2 sentences2026Although Mother did not raise any constitutional challenges in the trial court, given the seriousness of the termination of parental rights, we will briefly review Mother’s claim because we recognize that the right to raise one’s own child is “an ‘essential’ and ‘basic civil right.’” In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 156 (1990), quoting Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972); In re B.B.C., 2024-Ohio-588, ¶ 14 (8th Dist.). 2024See, e.g., id. at ¶ 10 (holding "that because the mother and the father failed to timely object to the magistrate's decisions and appeal the judgments granting temporary custody of the children to the agency, those judgments are valid, and the current challenge to the juvenile court's jurisdiction is barred by res judicata"). {¶ 16} "Res judicata bars relitigation of a matter that was raised or could have been raised on direct appeal when a final, appealable order was issued in accordance with the law at the time." Id., quoting State v. Griffin, 2013-Ohio-5481, ¶ 3 . "'[A]n adjudication that a | 2 | 2 |
In re O.V.green2 sentences2024See, e.g., In re P.O., 2024-Ohio-4472, ¶ 32-33 (9th Dist.); In re T.M., 2024-Ohio-2479, ¶ 27-32 (9th Dist.); and In re O.V., 2024-Ohio-2620, ¶ 36-39 (9th Dist.). 16 {¶43} After overruling Mother’s objection to the magistrate’s decision, the juvenile court’s judgment entry states that “[a]ll prior orders not inconsistent herein shall remain in full force and effect.” The judgment did not reiterate the prior orders relevant to the parents’ residual rights. 2024DISSENTING. {¶32} I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion because I would dismiss this appeal for lack of a final, appealable order based on the same reasoning enunciated in my dissents in In re T.M., 2024-Ohio-2479, ¶ 27-32 (9th Dist.), and In re O.V., 2024-Ohio-2620, ¶ 36-39 (9th Dist.). {¶33} After overruling Mother’s objection to the magistrate’s decision, the juvenile court’s judgment entry states that “[a]ll prior orders not inconsistent herein shall remain in full force and effect.” The judgment did not reiterate the prior orders relevant to the parents’ residual rights. | 2 | 2 |
In re T.M.green2 sentences2024See, e.g., In re P.O., 2024-Ohio-4472, ¶ 32-33 (9th Dist.); In re T.M., 2024-Ohio-2479, ¶ 27-32 (9th Dist.); and In re O.V., 2024-Ohio-2620, ¶ 36-39 (9th Dist.). 16 {¶43} After overruling Mother’s objection to the magistrate’s decision, the juvenile court’s judgment entry states that “[a]ll prior orders not inconsistent herein shall remain in full force and effect.” The judgment did not reiterate the prior orders relevant to the parents’ residual rights. 2024DISSENTING. {¶32} I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion because I would dismiss this appeal for lack of a final, appealable order based on the same reasoning enunciated in my dissents in In re T.M., 2024-Ohio-2479, ¶ 27-32 (9th Dist.), and In re O.V., 2024-Ohio-2620, ¶ 36-39 (9th Dist.). {¶33} After overruling Mother’s objection to the magistrate’s decision, the juvenile court’s judgment entry states that “[a]ll prior orders not inconsistent herein shall remain in full force and effect.” The judgment did not reiterate the prior orders relevant to the parents’ residual rights. | 2 | 2 |
Davis v. Flickingergreen2 sentences2022Deferring to the trial court on matters of credibility “is Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00073 14 crucial in a child custody case, where there may be as much evidence in the parties’ demeanor and attitude that does not translate to the record well.” Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 , 674 N.E.2d 1159 . {¶36} Under the circumstances, a transcript of the proceedings is necessary for a complete review of the error alleged in Mother’s brief since Mother is challenging the trial court’s findings. 2022Deferring to the trial court on matters of credibility “is Stark County, Case No. 2022CA00073 14 crucial in a child custody case, where there may be as much evidence in the parties’ demeanor and attitude that does not translate to the record well.” Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 , 674 N.E.2d 1159 . {¶36} Under the circumstances, a transcript of the proceedings is necessary for a complete review of the error alleged in Mother’s brief since Mother is challenging the trial court’s findings. | 1 | 3 |
Pratts v. Hurleygreen2 sentences2008It is only when the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction that its judgment is void; lack of jurisdiction over the particular case merely renders the judgment voidable."' Parker at ¶ 22 (Cook, J., dissenting), quoting Swiger , 125 Ohio App.3d at 462 , 708 N.E.2d 1033." Pratts v. Hurley , 102 Ohio St.3d 81 , 2004-Ohio-1980 , at ¶ 12 . {¶ 11} Mother's claim that the trial court exceeded its authority under Juv. 2007It is only when the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction that its judgment is void; lack of jurisdiction over the particular case merely renders the judgment voidable."' Parker at ¶ 22 (Cook, J., dissenting), quoting Swiger , 125 Ohio App.3d at 462 , 708 N.E.2d 1033 ." Pratts v. Hurley , 102 Ohio St.3d 81 , 83-84 , 2004-Ohio-1980 , at ¶ 12 . {¶ 16} Mother's claim that the trial court improperly invoked its jurisdiction by granting the Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate merely challenges the trial court's authority to exercise its jurisdiction in this case. | 1 | 3 |
Goldfuss v. Davidsongreen2 sentences2024Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 122-123 (1997). 2018Plain error review is not favored in civil cases and is defined in such context as an error that "seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public -5- Preble CA2017-12-017 CA2017-12-018 reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself." Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997), syllabus. | 1 | 2 |
In re A.S.green2 sentences2026In re A.S., 2025-Ohio-1349, ¶ 19-20 (9th Dist.). {¶19} As Mother’s brief recognizes, this Court addressed and rejected a similar “suitability” argument in In re A.S. at ¶ 16-20 (9th Dist.), based on the explicit language of R.C. 2151.42(B) and this Court’s prior reasoning set forth in In re I.S., 2009-Ohio-6432 (9th Dist.). 2026In re A.S. also involved a dependency case that was reopened after a child was returned to the parents’ legal custody and the case was closed. 2025-Ohio-1349, at ¶ 12 (9th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
| In re G.B.green | 1 | 1 |
Anders v. Seitzgreen1 sentence2026Kelley v. Horton, 2025-Ohio-5252, ¶ 22 (1st Dist.), citing Anders v. Seitz, 2023-Ohio-668, ¶ 15, fn. 3 (12th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
Sellers-Smith v. Smithgreen1 sentence2026See, e.g., R.C. v. R.A.C., 2025-Ohio-5640, ¶ 3-4 (8th Dist.) (reversing the trial court’s ruling on a motion made prior to the response deadline established by local rules and remanding the matter for further proceedings); Sellers-Smith at ¶ 9, 12 (finding that the trial court erred when it did not afford a party seven days within which to approve or reject the other party’s proposed documents, as provided for under a local rule); Henry Cty. | 1 | 1 |
Parson v. Daytongreen1 sentence2026Parson v. Dayton, 2023-Ohio-4689, ¶ 10 (2d Dist.) (judgment affirmed notwithstanding appellant’s noncompliance with App.R. 16), citing McCormick v. Lu, 2019-Ohio-624, ¶ 19 (10th Dist.). {¶ 11} Mother’s brief fails to comply with App.R. 16 in most respects. | 1 | 1 |
In re T.G.green1 sentence2026According to MCCS, “‘[b]ecause the evidence supports the trial court’s best interest finding, it also necessarily supports the court’s decision to overrule Appellants’ motion for legal custody.’” Appellee’s Brief, p. 10, quoting In re T.G., 2015-Ohio-5330, ¶ 31 (4th Dist.). {¶ 44} The trial court considered the relevant best interest factors when it granted MCCS’s motions for permanent custody of C.P., M.R., and C.R. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Amanda W.green1 sentence2026The juvenile court overruled Mother’s objection to being called on cross- examination, but limited questioning to avoid any testimony regarding matters at issue in the criminal proceedings. {¶ 65} “The privilege to refrain from compulsory self-incrimination as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States “ ‘can be claimed in any proceeding, be it criminal or civil, administrative or adjudicatory * * *. [I]t protects any disclosures which the witness may reasonably apprehend could be used in the criminal prosecution or which could lead to other evidence that might | 1 | 1 |
In re J.W.green1 sentence2026See, e.g., In re A.M., 2025-Ohio-5029, ¶ 22 (9th Dist.); In re T.R., 2024-Ohio- 3092, ¶ 24 (9th Dist.); In re J.W., 2019-Ohio-210, ¶ 15 (9th Dist.). {¶15} Moreover, the record does not support Mother’s brief argument that she had made sufficient progress on the case plan. | 1 | 1 |
| McCormick v. Lugreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re A.M.green | 1 | 1 |
| In re A.B.green | 1 | 1 |
Kelley v. Hortongreen1 sentence2026Kelley v. Horton, 2025-Ohio-5252, ¶ 22 (1st Dist.), citing Anders v. Seitz, 2023-Ohio-668, ¶ 15, fn. 3 (12th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
| R.C. v. R.A.C.green | 1 | 1 |
| In re B.B.C.green | 1 | 1 |
| In re H.M.K.green | 1 | 1 |
In re J.B.green1 sentence2026See, e.g., In re J.B., 2013-Ohio-1704, ¶ 90 (8th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
| In re K.M.green | 1 | 1 |
Tedeschi v. Grovergreen1 sentence2026In re L.M., 2011-Ohio-1585 , ¶ 53 (11th Dist.), citing Tedeschi v. Grover, 39 Ohio App.3d 109, 111 (10th Dist.) (additional citation omitted.). | 1 | 1 |
| Harrington v. Richtergreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re E.J.green | 1 | 1 |
| In re J.C.green | 1 | 1 |
| Hock v. Solesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Souders v. Soudersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re S.F.green | 1 | 1 |
| J.E.M. v. D.N.M.green | 1 | 1 |
| In re D.J.green | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Miller, Unpublished Decision (2-24-2005)green | 1 | 1 |
| In re Whitakergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Galloway v. Khan, Unpublished Decision (12-12-2006)green | 1 | 1 |
| White v. White, Unpublished Decision (11-18-2003)green | 1 | 1 |
| Pauly v. Paulygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Eastley v. Volkman
green
2 sentences2017However, I find merit in Mother’s challenge of the second prong finding because without considering the stipulation and the finding that Mother has not demonstrated a commitment toward reunification with the child, I cannot conclude that there was clear and convincing evidence that it was in the best interest of B.Y. to be placed in the permanent custody of CSB. {¶37} Clear and convincing evidence is that which will “‘produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.’” In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361, 268 (1985), quotin 2017However, I find merit in Mother’s challenge of the second prong finding because without considering the stipulation and the finding that Mother has not demonstrated a commitment toward reunification with the child, I cannot conclude that there was clear and convincing evidence that it was in the best interest of B.Y. to be placed in the permanent custody of CSB. {¶37} Clear and convincing evidence is that which will “‘produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.’” In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361, 268 (1985), quotin | 3 | 2017–2023 |
Miller v. Miller
green
2 sentences2018Miller v. Miller , 37 Ohio St.3d 71 , 74, 523 N.E.2d 846 (1988). {¶ 56} We see no abuse of discretion in the juvenile court's denial of Mother's motion for a second extension of temporary custody and grant of legal custody of A.F. to M.B. and P.B. 2018Miller v. Miller , 37 Ohio St.3d 71 , 74, 523 N.E.2d 846 (1988). {¶ 56} We see no abuse of discretion in the juvenile court's denial of Mother's motion for a second extension of temporary custody and grant of legal custody of A.F. to M.B. and P.B. | 3 | 2003–2018 |
In re G.S.
neutral
2 sentences2026In re L.C., 2024-Ohio-147, ¶¶ 8-9 (11th Dist.); In re G.S., 2025-Ohio-2949 (5th Dist.) (recognizing that in PC cases, failure to object to a Magistrate’s decision results in a plain error analysis on appeal); In re K.M., 2020-Ohio-3602, ¶ 22 (12th Dist.) (holding that, in a permanent custody case, “Mother's challenge is limited to plain error” where “Mother failed to object to the magistrate's decision as required by Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)”). {¶18} Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b) establishes the procedure for objecting to a magistrate's decision and states that failure to object waives the right to assign erro 2026In re L.C., 2024-Ohio-147, ¶¶ 8-9 (11th Dist.); In re G.S., 2025-Ohio-2949 (5th Dist.) (recognizing that in PC cases, failure to object to a Magistrate’s decision results in a plain error analysis on appeal); In re K.M., 2020-Ohio-3602, ¶ 22 (12th Dist.) (holding that, in a permanent custody case, “Mother's challenge is limited to plain error” where “Mother failed to object to the magistrate's decision as required by Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)”). {¶18} Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b) establishes the procedure for objecting to a magistrate's decision and states that failure to object waives the right to assign erro | 2 | 2026–2026 |
In re T.G.
green
2 sentences2025In the Matter of T.G., 2022-Ohio-1213 (5th Dist.). 2025In the Matter of T.G., 2022-Ohio-1213 (5th Dist.). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
In re P/W Children
green
2 sentences2023Hamilton No. C-200103, 2020-Ohio-3513, ¶ 27 . {¶10} The juvenile court is permitted to modify temporary custody to permanent custody pursuant to the two-prong test of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1). 2021Hamilton No. C-200103, 2020-Ohio-3513, ¶ 27 . {¶9} R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) permits the juvenile court to amend temporary custody to permanent custody upon satisfaction of a two-prong test. | 2 | 2021–2023 |
In re G.W.
green
2 sentences2023Butler No. CA2019-01-003, 2019-Ohio-1586, ¶ 52 . 2023Butler No. CA2019-01-003, 2019-Ohio-1586, ¶ 52 . | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Anders v. California
green
2 sentences2020In lieu of a merit brief, Father’s attorney filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there were no errors or issues justifying reversal of the juvenile court’s judgment. 2016CALIFORNIA. {¶ 17} In her second assignment of error, Mother cites to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), and requests this court to independently review the record to determine if any possible error exists. | 2 | 2016–2020 |
State v. Morris
green
2 sentences2017"A review under the abuse-of-discretion standard is a deferential review." State v. Morris, 132 Ohio St.3d 337 , 2012-Ohio-2407, ¶ 14 . {¶ 26} After thoroughly reviewing the record, we find the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother's motion for an extension of temporary custody. 2017"A review under the abuse-of-discretion standard is a deferential review." State v. Morris, 132 Ohio St.3d 337 , 2012-Ohio-2407, ¶ 14 . {¶ 26} After thoroughly reviewing the record, we find the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother's motion for an extension of temporary custody. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
In re C.C.
green
2 sentences2014In re C.C., 187 Ohio App.3d 365 , 2010- Ohio-780, 932 N.E.2d 360 (8th Dist). {¶48} With respect to Mother’s claim that counsel was deficient in failing to present testimony from her doctors, Mother has failed to produce anything to demonstrate that such testimony would have been favorable. 2014In re C.C., 187 Ohio App.3d 365 , 2010- Ohio-780, 932 N.E.2d 360 (8th Dist). {¶48} With respect to Mother’s claim that counsel was deficient in failing to present testimony from her doctors, Mother has failed to produce anything to demonstrate that such testimony would have been favorable. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Swiger
green
2 sentences2008It is only when the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction that its judgment is void; lack of jurisdiction over the particular case merely renders the judgment voidable."' Parker at ¶ 22 (Cook, J., dissenting), quoting Swiger , 125 Ohio App.3d at 462 , 708 N.E.2d 1033." Pratts v. Hurley , 102 Ohio St.3d 81 , 2004-Ohio-1980 , at ¶ 12 . {¶ 11} Mother's claim that the trial court exceeded its authority under Juv. 2008It is only when the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction that its judgment is void; lack of jurisdiction over the particular case merely renders the judgment voidable."' Parker at ¶ 22 (Cook, J., dissenting), quoting Swiger , 125 Ohio App.3d at 462 , 708 N.E.2d 1033." Pratts v. Hurley , 102 Ohio St.3d 81 , 2004-Ohio-1980 , at ¶ 12 . {¶ 11} Mother's claim that the trial court exceeded its authority under Juv. | 2 | 2007–2008 |
| In Re GAULT green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Stanley v. Illinois
green
1 sentence2026Although Mother did not raise any constitutional challenges in the trial court, given the seriousness of the termination of parental rights, we will briefly review Mother’s claim because we recognize that the right to raise one’s own child is “an ‘essential’ and ‘basic civil right.’” In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 156 (1990), quoting Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972); In re B.B.C., 2024-Ohio-588, ¶ 14 (8th Dist.). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| In re E.S. green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| In re M.G. neutral | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Goldfuss v. Davidson green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Bender v. Durrani green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Donofrio v. Whitman green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| In re J.J. neutral | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Bruns v. Green (Slip Opinion) green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| In re Hoffman green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Echols v. Echols neutral | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| In re Hoffman green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| In re W.W. green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.