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.
16 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2025 6 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 S.L.green2 sentences2025Pursuant to R.C. 2151.353(A)(3), after a child has been adjudicated abused, neglected, or dependent, the court may “[a]ward legal custody of the child to . . . any . . . person who . . . is identified as a proposed legal custodian in a complaint or motion filed prior to the dispositional hearing by any party to the proceedings.” “When a juvenile court considers an award of legal custody following an adjudication of abuse, neglect, or dependency, it does so by examining what would be in ‘the best interest of the child’ based on a preponderance of the evidence.” (Cleaned up.) In re S.L., 2024-Oh 2025“When a juvenile court considers an award of legal custody following an adjudication of abuse, neglect, or dependency, it does so by examining what would be in ‘the best interest of the child’ based on a preponderance of the evidence.” (Cleaned up.) In re S.L., 2024-Ohio-1989, ¶ 19 (8th Dist.). | 2 | 2 |
In Re Hitchcockgreen2 sentences2025And second, CCDCFS’s motion to modify temporary custody to permanent custody was filed on December 4, 2023, and not December 4, 2024, as also indicated in the juvenile court’s order. provides support, care, discipline, protection and motivation.”’” In re L.H., 2024- Ohio-2271, ¶ 24 (8th Dist.), quoting In re J.B. at ¶ 66, quoting In re Hitchcock, 120 Ohio App.3d 88, 102 (8th Dist. 1996). 2025“Where parental rights are terminated, the goal is to create ‘a more stable life’ for dependent children and to ‘facilitate adoption to foster permanency for children.’” Id., quoting In re N.B. at ¶ 67, citing In re Howard, 1986 Ohio App. LEXIS 7860 , *5 (5th Dist. | 1 | 2 |
In re Y.F.green1 sentence2025Pursuant to R.C. 2151.353(A)(3), after a child has been adjudicated abused, neglected, or dependent, the court may “[a]ward legal custody of the child to . . . any . . . person who . . . is identified as a proposed legal custodian in a complaint or motion filed prior to the dispositional hearing by any party to the proceedings.” “When a juvenile court considers an award of legal custody following an adjudication of abuse, neglect, or dependency, it does so by examining what would be in ‘the best interest of the child’ based on a preponderance of the evidence.” (Cleaned up.) In re S.L., 2024-Oh | 1 | 1 |
In re M.H.green1 sentence2020See 2018-Ohio-4848, ¶ 46 (Keough, J., concurring). | 1 | 1 |
In re D.M. (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2015Ritchie; see also D.M., 140 Ohio St.3d 309 , 2014-Ohio-3628 , 18 N.E.3d 404 , at ¶ 16 (“when the state or the juvenile claims that documents are privileged or otherwise not discoverable, it is an abuse of discretion for the juvenile court not to perform an in camera inspection of the documents to determine whether they contain discoverable evidence * * * ”). {¶86} The CCDCFS records are not part of the record on appeal. 2015Ritchie; see also D.M., 140 Ohio St.3d 309 , 2014-Ohio-3628 , 18 N.E.3d 404 , at ¶ 16 (“when the state or the juvenile claims that documents are privileged or otherwise not discoverable, it is an abuse of discretion for the juvenile court not to perform an in camera inspection of the documents to determine whether they contain discoverable evidence * * * ”). {¶86} The CCDCFS records are not part of the record on appeal. | 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 sentences2022In In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 , 2007-Ohio-1104 , 862 N.E.2d 816 , the Supreme Court of Ohio analyzed whether a reasonable-efforts determination is required in motions for permanent custody filed pursuant to R.C. 2151.413. 2013In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 , 2007-Ohio-1104 , 862 N.E.2d 816 , ¶ 28. | 2 | 2013–2022 |
Eastley v. Volkman
green
1 sentence2025When reviewing for manifest weight, we “must weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the finder of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be reversed and a new juvenile ordered.” Id. at ¶ 14, citing Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 20 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In re Hayes
red
2 sentences2024We begin our analysis with the recognition that, while a parent’s right to raise a child is an essential and basic civil right, In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46, 48 , 679 N.E.2d 680 (1997), children have the right to “parenting from either [biological] or adoptive parents which provides support, care, discipline, protection and motivation.” In re Hitchcock, 120 Ohio App.3d 88, 102 , 696 N.E.2d 1090 (8th Dist.1996). 2024We begin our analysis with the recognition that, while a parent’s right to raise a child is an essential and basic civil right, In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46, 48 , 679 N.E.2d 680 (1997), children have the right to “parenting from either [biological] or adoptive parents which provides support, care, discipline, protection and motivation.” In re Hitchcock, 120 Ohio App.3d 88, 102 , 696 N.E.2d 1090 (8th Dist.1996). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. D'Ambrosio
green
2 sentences2012ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IV The trial court’s failure to raise the issue of the inherent conflict of having the same jurist preside over the matters in drug court and in the adjudication of parental rights resulted in reversible error. {¶38} As set forth previously in this opinion, a “judge need not recuse himself [or herself] on basis that he [or she] acquired knowledge of the facts during a prior proceeding.” In re: Daniel E., 122 Ohio App.3d 139 , 701 N.E.2d 408 (6th Dist.1997), citing, State v. D’Ambrosio, 67 Ohio St.3d 185, 188 , 616 N.E.2d 909 (1993). 2012ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IV The trial court’s failure to raise the issue of the inherent conflict of having the same jurist preside over the matters in drug court and in the adjudication of parental rights resulted in reversible error. {¶38} As set forth previously in this opinion, a “judge need not recuse himself [or herself] on basis that he [or she] acquired knowledge of the facts during a prior proceeding.” In re: Daniel E., 122 Ohio App.3d 139 , 701 N.E.2d 408 (6th Dist.1997), citing, State v. D’Ambrosio, 67 Ohio St.3d 185, 188 , 616 N.E.2d 909 (1993). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
O'Toole v. Denihan
green
2 sentences2012In finding that Fitzgerald’s constitutional challenge is without merit, we noted that in O’Toole v. Denihan, 118 Ohio St.3d 374 , 2008-Ohio-2574 , 889 N.E.2d 505, ¶ 95 , the Ohio Supreme Court refused to revisit the constitutionality of R.C. 2012In finding that Fitzgerald’s constitutional challenge is without merit, we noted that in O’Toole v. Denihan, 118 Ohio St.3d 374 , 2008-Ohio-2574 , 889 N.E.2d 505, ¶ 95 , the Ohio Supreme Court refused to revisit the constitutionality of R.C. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
In Re Daniel E.
green
2 sentences2012ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IV The trial court’s failure to raise the issue of the inherent conflict of having the same jurist preside over the matters in drug court and in the adjudication of parental rights resulted in reversible error. {¶38} As set forth previously in this opinion, a “judge need not recuse himself [or herself] on basis that he [or she] acquired knowledge of the facts during a prior proceeding.” In re: Daniel E., 122 Ohio App.3d 139 , 701 N.E.2d 408 (6th Dist.1997), citing, State v. D’Ambrosio, 67 Ohio St.3d 185, 188 , 616 N.E.2d 909 (1993). 2012ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IV The trial court’s failure to raise the issue of the inherent conflict of having the same jurist preside over the matters in drug court and in the adjudication of parental rights resulted in reversible error. {¶38} As set forth previously in this opinion, a “judge need not recuse himself [or herself] on basis that he [or she] acquired knowledge of the facts during a prior proceeding.” In re: Daniel E., 122 Ohio App.3d 139 , 701 N.E.2d 408 (6th Dist.1997), citing, State v. D’Ambrosio, 67 Ohio St.3d 185, 188 , 616 N.E.2d 909 (1993). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State ex rel. White v. Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority
green
2 sentences2011Auth. (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 543, 545 , 684 N.E.2d 72 . {¶ 14} In this case, when the juvenile court considered CCDCFS’s motion to modify temporary custody to permanent custody, the court was required by statute to consider whether that modification was in the best interests of the child. 2011Auth. (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 543, 545 , 684 N.E.2d 72 . {¶ 14} In this case, when the juvenile court considered CCDCFS’s motion to modify temporary custody to permanent custody, the court was required by statute to consider whether that modification was in the best interests of the child. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
In re Adams
green
2 sentences2011The child’s mother then appealed the order granting custody to the father, and the child’s guardian ad litem filed a cross-appeal on behalf of the child, challenging the trial court’s denial of CCDCFS’s motion for permanent custody and the award of legal custody to the father. {¶ 4} The Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga County dismissed the appeal on the authority of In re Adams, 115 Ohio St.3d 86 , 2007-Ohio-4840 , 873 N.E.2d 886 . 2011The child’s mother then appealed the order granting custody to the father, and the child’s guardian ad litem filed a cross-appeal on behalf of the child, challenging the trial court’s denial of CCDCFS’s motion for permanent custody and the award of legal custody to the father. {¶ 4} The Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga County dismissed the appeal on the authority of In re Adams, 115 Ohio St.3d 86 , 2007-Ohio-4840 , 873 N.E.2d 886 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
In Re A.M., 91173 (9-4-2008)
neutral
1 sentence2011In re A.M., Cuyahoga App. Nos. 91173 and 91218, 2008-Ohio-4454, ¶ 26 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Masters v. Masters
green
2 sentences2008Masters v. Masters , 69 Ohio St.3d 83 , 1994-Ohio-483 , 630 N.E.2d 665 . 2008Masters v. Masters , 69 Ohio St.3d 83 , 1994-Ohio-483 , 630 N.E.2d 665 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Masters v. Masters
green
1 sentence2008Masters v. Masters , 69 Ohio St.3d 83 , 1994-Ohio-483 , 630 N.E.2d 665 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
In re Anderson
green
1 sentence2002(Dec. 13, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 78750. 6 Similarly, CCDCFS's claim that the mother waived error by failing to appeal the magistrate's order pursuant to Juv.R. 40(C)(3)(b) is moot, because the judge addressed the order and continued it. 7 R.C. 2151.33 (C)(1). 8 In re Hitchcock (June 22, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 76432. 9 Juv.R. 16. 10 Civ.R. 58(B); In re Anderson, 92 Ohio St.3d 63 , 67 , 2001-Ohio-131 , 748 N.E.2d 67 . 11 See, e.g., Ohio Valley Radiology Assoc., Inc. v. Ohio Valley Hosp. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Ohio Valley Radiology Associates, Inc. v. Ohio Valley Hospital Ass'n
green
2 sentences2002Assn. (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 118 , 123-124 , 28 OBR 216, 502 N.E.2d 599 (Civ.R. 5(A) does not apply generally to court's entries). 2002Assn. (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 118 , 123-124 , 28 OBR 216, 502 N.E.2d 599 (Civ.R. 5(A) does not apply generally to court's entries). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
In re Anderson
green
2 sentences2002(Dec. 13, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 78750. 6 Similarly, CCDCFS's claim that the mother waived error by failing to appeal the magistrate's order pursuant to Juv.R. 40(C)(3)(b) is moot, because the judge addressed the order and continued it. 7 R.C. 2151.33 (C)(1). 8 In re Hitchcock (June 22, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 76432. 9 Juv.R. 16. 10 Civ.R. 58(B); In re Anderson, 92 Ohio St.3d 63 , 67 , 2001-Ohio-131 , 748 N.E.2d 67 . 11 See, e.g., Ohio Valley Radiology Assoc., Inc. v. Ohio Valley Hosp. 2002(Dec. 13, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 78750. 6 Similarly, CCDCFS's claim that the mother waived error by failing to appeal the magistrate's order pursuant to Juv.R. 40(C)(3)(b) is moot, because the judge addressed the order and continued it. 7 R.C. 2151.33 (C)(1). 8 In re Hitchcock (June 22, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 76432. 9 Juv.R. 16. 10 Civ.R. 58(B); In re Anderson, 92 Ohio St.3d 63 , 67 , 2001-Ohio-131 , 748 N.E.2d 67 . 11 See, e.g., Ohio Valley Radiology Assoc., Inc. v. Ohio Valley Hosp. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
In Re Miller
green
2 sentences2000In re Miller (1986), 33 Ohio App.3d 224 , 225-26 , 515 N.E.2d 635 , 638 ; Frinzl, paragraph one of the syllabus. 2000In re Miller (1986), 33 Ohio App.3d 224 , 225-26 , 515 N.E.2d 635 , 638 ; Frinzl, paragraph one of the syllabus. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.