Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
21 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2024 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Myers v. Garsongreen2 sentences2019Hamilton No. C-040239, 2005-Ohio-1182, ¶ 11 ; see Myers v. Garson, 66 Ohio St.3d 610, 614 , 614 N.E.2d 742 (1993). {¶7} When children have been previously adjudicated dependent and temporary custody has been granted to HCJFS pursuant to R.C. 2151.353(A)(2), HCJFS may then move for permanent custody of the children pursuant to R.C. 2151.413(A) and 2151.414. 2019Hamilton No. C-040239, 2005-Ohio-1182, ¶ 11 ; see Myers v. Garson, 66 Ohio St.3d 610, 614 , 614 N.E.2d 742 (1993). {¶7} When children have been previously adjudicated dependent and temporary custody has been granted to HCJFS pursuant to R.C. 2151.353(A)(2), HCJFS may then move for permanent custody of the children pursuant to R.C. 2151.413(A) and 2151.414. | 2 | 2 |
In Re Allah, Unpublished Decision (3-18-2005)green2 sentences2024We will not reverse a juvenile court’s decision on appeal where the court “correctly applied the best-interests test and where its custody decision was amply supported by competent evidence in the record.” In re R.B. at ¶ 9, quoting In re Allah, 2005-Ohio-1182, ¶ 11 (1st Dist.). 2024Hamilton No. C-040239, 2005-Ohio-1182, ¶ 11 . {¶20} To support a grant of permanent custody by motion, the juvenile court must determine (1) the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with a parent, using the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(E), and (2) that permanent custody is in the best interest of the child based on the factors set forth in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1). | 1 | 5 |
Myers v. Garsongreen1 sentence2005See In re Harris, supra at ¶ 16; see, also, Myers v. Garson, 66 Ohio St.3d 610 , 1993-Ohio-9 , 614 N.E.2d 742 . {¶ 12} The assignment of error is overruled and the judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed. | 1 | 1 |
Perales v. Ninogreen2 sentences1999The common-law standard was announced in its most authoritative form by the Supreme Court in In re Perales (1977), 52 Ohio St.2d 89 , syllabus. 1999See id. at 99 . | 1 | 1 |
Masitto v. Masittogreen2 sentences1999Hurley relies on the authority of Masitto v. Masitto (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 63 (per curiam). 1999Id. at 67. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Portergreen2 sentences1999In In re Porter , 113 Ohio App.3d 580 , the Third District Court of Appeals announced its view of the "distinction which exists between a pure `best interest test' and the test of detriment to the child used in Perales ." Id . at 589. 1999See id. | 1 | 1 |
Baker v. Bakergreen1 sentence1999See id. at 98 ; see also Baker v. Baker (1996), 113 Ohio App.3d 805 , 810-811 ("Having written that the scope of inquiry under R.C. 2151.23 (A) was broader, the court then proceeded, for all practical purposes, to merge that broader inquiry with the test it had applied in Boyer under R.C. 3109.04 ."). | 1 | 1 |
Wisconsin v. Yodergreen2 sentences1992See Wisconsin v. Yoder, supra, 406 U.S. at 221 , 92 S.Ct. at 1536 , 32 L.Ed.2d at 28 ; Employment Division v. Smith, supra. This balancing requires more than a rote recitation that a domestic relations judge may consider any factor relevant to the best interests of a child, especially if the best-interests test is read broadly to encompass all aspects of childrearing. 1992See Wisconsin v. Yoder, supra, 406 U.S. at 221 , 92 S.Ct. at 1536 , 32 L.Ed.2d at 28 ; Employment Division v. Smith, supra. This balancing requires more than a rote recitation that a domestic relations judge may consider any factor relevant to the best interests of a child, especially if the best-interests test is read broadly to encompass all aspects of childrearing. | 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 C.F.
green
2 sentences2021No one element is given greater weight or heightened significance." In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 , 2007-Ohio-1104 , at ¶ 57, quoting R.C. 2151.414(D)(1). 2021No one element is given greater weight or heightened significance." In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 , 2007-Ohio- 1104, ¶ 57, quoting R.C. 2151.414(D)(1). | 5 | 2013–2021 |
In re Schaefer
green
2 sentences2016No one element is given greater weight or heightened significance.” In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d Highland App. Nos. 15CA15 and 15CA16 14 73, 2007–Ohio–1104, 862 N.E.2d 816 , ¶57, citing In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 , 2006–Ohio–5513, 857 N.E.2d 532, ¶56 . 2016No one element is given greater weight or heightened significance.” In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d Highland App. Nos. 15CA15 and 15CA16 14 73, 2007–Ohio–1104, 862 N.E.2d 816 , ¶57, citing In re Schaefer, 111 Ohio St.3d 498 , 2006–Ohio–5513, 857 N.E.2d 532, ¶56 . | 5 | 2014–2016 |
In the Matter of Brooks, Unpublished Decision (10-7-2003)
green
1 sentence2019Franklin Nos. 03AP-282 and 03AP-442, 2003-Ohio-5348, ¶ 23 , the court said “[o]n remand, the trial court must analyze the best interest factors and any additional relevant factors, and must state findings to indicate that such an analysis was conducted.” But in that case, the trial court had not mentioned any of the best-interests factors or the statutory provision relating to such factors to show that they were considered. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Surgenavic v. Robertshaw-Surgenavic, 08 Ma 29 (3-5-2009)
green
2 sentences2011If the statute itself unequivocally states that a best-interests test, alone, applies in determining a motion to completely terminate shared parenting, then there is no basis to first apply the test to determine whether a change in circumstances exists. {¶ 18} Although this court, in Surgenavic, 2009-Ohio-1028 , did apply Fisher to a case involving termination of a shared-parenting plan, it has not yet applied Fisher to a case involving a motion that seeks complete termination of shared parenting, which includes the termination of the shared-parenting decree as well as the shared- -9- parentin 2011If the statute itself unequivocally states that a best-interests test, alone, applies in determining a motion to completely terminate shared parenting, then there is no basis to first apply the test to determine whether a change in circumstances exists. {¶ 18} Although this court, in Surgenavic, 2009-Ohio-1028 , 2009 WL 582575 , did apply Fisher to a case involving termination of a shared-parenting plan, it has not yet applied Fisher to a case involving a motion that seeks complete termination of shared parenting, which includes the termination of the shared- parenting decree as well as the sh | 1 | 2011–2011 |
In Re A.B.
green
2 sentences2007In re A.B., 110 Ohio St.3d 230 , 2006-Ohio-4359 , 852 N.E.2d 1187, ¶ 32 . {¶ 57} In a best-interests analysis under R.C. 2151.414(D), a court must consider “all relevant factors,” including five enumerated statutory factors, one of which is the wishes of the child. 2007In re A.B., 110 Ohio St.3d 230 , 2006-Ohio-4359 , 852 N.E.2d 1187, ¶ 32 . {¶ 57} In a best-interests analysis under R.C. 2151.414(D), a court must consider “all relevant factors,” including five enumerated statutory factors, one of which is the wishes of the child. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
In Re Adoption of Jorgensen
green
2 sentences2007The biological father received notice of both hearings, but notice of the best-interests hearing specifically stated that “ ‘neither the natural father nor his counsel will be permitted to appear and participate in said final hearing.’ ” Id. at 208 , 515 N.E.2d 622 . 2007The biological father received notice of both hearings, but notice of the best-interests hearing specifically stated that “ ‘neither the natural father nor his counsel will be permitted to appear and participate in said final hearing.’ ” Id. at 208 , 515 N.E.2d 622 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Reynolds v. Goll
green
1 sentence1999The more recent Supreme Court of opinion of Reynolds v. Goll (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 121 , resolved the question of whether Masitto applies to juvenile court cases arising under R.C. 2151.23 (A); clearly now, it does. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Reynolds v. Goll
green
2 sentences1993In Reynolds v. Goll (1992), 80 Ohio App.3d 494 , 609 N.E.2d 1276 , the court traced the common-law and legislative vacillations between the best-interests test and the parental-unsuitability test. 1993In Reynolds v. Goll (1992), 80 Ohio App.3d 494 , 609 N.E.2d 1276 , the court traced the common-law and legislative vacillations between the best-interests test and the parental-unsuitability test. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.