listed factors in Ohio

2026The listed factors include: (1) the child’s interaction and interrelationship with the child’s parents, siblings, relatives, foster parents and out-of-home providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child; (2) the child’s wishes, as expressed directly by the child or through the child’s guardian ad litem, with due regard for the child’s maturity; (3) the child’s custodial history; (4) the child’s need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody HIGHLAND, 25CA12 17 to the agency; and (5) w

2026The listed factors include: (1) the child’s interaction and interrelationship with the child’s parents, siblings, relatives, foster parents and out-of-home providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child; (2) the child’s wishes, as expressed directly by the child or through the child’s guardian ad litem, with due regard for the child’s maturity; (3) the child’s custodial history; (4) the child’s need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to the agency; and (5) whether any factors l

2026The listed factors include: (1) the child’s interaction and interrelationship with the child’s parents, siblings, relatives, foster parents and out-of-home providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child; (2) the child’s wishes, as expressed directly by the child or through the child’s guardian ad litem, with due regard for the child’s maturity; (3) the child’s custodial history; (4) the child’s need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody HIGHLAND, 25CA12 17 to the agency; and (5) w

2026The listed factors include: (1) the child’s interaction and interrelationship with the child’s parents, siblings, relatives, foster parents and out-of-home providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child; (2) the child’s wishes, as expressed directly by the child or through the child’s guardian ad litem, with due regard for the child’s maturity; (3) the child’s custodial history; (4) the child’s need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to the agency; and (5) whether any factors l

2025“Although the trial court must consider all relevant factors, there is no requirement that the trial court set out an analysis for each of the factors in its judgment entry, so long as the judgment entry is supported by some competent, credible evidence.” Krill at ¶ 29 . “[A]bsent evidence to the contrary, an appellate court will presume the trial court considered all of the relevant ‘best interest’ factors -9- Case No. 14-24-10 listed in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).” Brammer v. Meachem, 2011-Ohio-519, ¶ 32 (3d Dist.). {¶18} “Additionally, we note that the trier of fact is in the best position to obser

2024“Although the trial court must consider all relevant factors, there is no requirement that the trial court set out an analysis for each of the factors in its judgment entry, so long as the judgment entry is supported by some competent, credible evidence.” Krill at ¶ 29 . “‘[A]bsent evidence to the contrary, an appellate court will presume the trial court considered all of the relevant “best interest” factors -18- Case No. 4-23-18 listed in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).’” Brammer v. Meachem, 2011-Ohio-519, ¶ 32 (3d Dist.). {¶34} “Additionally, we note that the trier of fact is in the best position to obs

2025“Although the trial court must consider all relevant factors, there is no requirement that the trial court set out an analysis for each of the factors in its judgment entry, so long as the judgment entry is supported by some competent, credible evidence.” Krill at ¶ 29 . “[A]bsent evidence to the contrary, an appellate court will presume the trial court considered all of the relevant ‘best interest’ factors -9- Case No. 14-24-10 listed in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).” Brammer v. Meachem, 2011-Ohio-519, ¶ 32 (3d Dist.). {¶18} “Additionally, we note that the trier of fact is in the best position to obser

2024“Although the trial court must consider all relevant factors, there is no requirement that the trial court set out an analysis for each of the factors in its judgment entry, so long as the judgment entry is supported by some competent, credible evidence.” Krill at ¶ 29 . “‘[A]bsent evidence to the contrary, an appellate court will presume the trial court considered all of the relevant “best interest” factors -18- Case No. 4-23-18 listed in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).’” Brammer v. Meachem, 2011-Ohio-519, ¶ 32 (3d Dist.). {¶34} “Additionally, we note that the trier of fact is in the best position to obs

2018"Probable cause sufficient to justify a search exists where, based on the totality of the circumstances, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place." Id., citing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983). {¶ 27} In concluding the totality of the circumstances leading up to the opening of the box truck gave the officers probable cause to search the box truck under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, the trial court listed the factors that aided its decision, including: (1) the chaotic scene of broken and intact water

2018"Probable cause sufficient to justify a search exists where, based on the totality of the circumstances, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place." Id., citing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983). {¶ 27} In concluding the totality of the circumstances leading up to the opening of the box truck gave the officers probable cause to search the box truck under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, the trial court listed the factors that aided its decision, including: (1) the chaotic scene of broken and intact water

2004Many of the listed factors involve conviction data that may be found in the court's file, but the list is not designed to be exclusive; the court must "consider all relevant factors." State v. Eppinger, 91 Ohio St.3d 158 at 164, 2001-Ohio-247 .

2004Many of the listed factors involve conviction data that may be found in the court's file, but the list is not designed to be exclusive; the court must "consider all relevant factors." State v. Eppinger, 91 Ohio St.3d 158 at 164, 2001-Ohio-247 .

2021No. 05AP- 326, 2005-Ohio-6101, ¶ 7-8 (agreeing with reasoning in El-Zant, holding that appellant’s felony assault conviction was not a listed exception and therefore ineligible for expungement); State v. Ventura, 12th Dist.

2011No. 05AP-326, 2005-Ohio-6101, at ¶7-8 (agreeing with reasoning in El-Zant, holding that appellant's felony assault conviction was not a listed exception and therefore ineligible for expungement); State v. Ventura, 12th Dist.

2026“Notably, R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) does not limit courts to just the listed factors; courts 19 are permitted to consider ‘all relevant factors.’” In re C.N., 2016-Ohio-7322, ¶ 51 (2d Dist.).

2023Montgomery No. 27119, 2016-Ohio-7322, ¶ 51 .

2026Some of the listed factors “include such things as the parents’ wishes; the child’s wishes, if the court has interviewed the child; the child’s interaction with parents, siblings, and others who may significantly affect the child’s best interests; adjustment of the child to home, school, and community; and the mental and physical health of all involved persons.” In re D.S., 2014-Ohio-2444, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.), citing R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

2026Some of the listed factors “include such things as the parents’ wishes; the child’s wishes, if the court has interviewed the child; the child’s interaction with parents, siblings, and others who may significantly affect the child’s best interests; adjustment of the child to home, school, and community; and the mental and physical health of all involved persons.” In re D.S., 2014-Ohio-2444, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.), citing R.C. 3109.04(F)(1).

2021No. CA2005-03-079, 2005-Ohio-5048, ¶ 10-12 (agreeing with reasoning in El-Zant, holding that appellant’s felony assault on a police officer conviction was not a listed exception and therefore ineligible for expungement).

2011No. CA2005-03-079, 2005-Ohio-5048 , at ¶10- -5- 12 (agreeing with reasoning in El-Zant, holding that appellant's felony assault on a police officer conviction was not a listed exception and therefore ineligible for expungement). {¶16} The reasoning of our sister districts is sound.

2026“Those factors are similar to the factors in R.C. 2151.414(D) that govern permanent custody motions, and courts sometimes apply both provisions when considering legal custody.” M.W. at ¶ 13, citing In re A.K., 2017-Ohio-8100, ¶ 13-14 (2d Dist.). {¶ 51} “While the trial court need not explicitly reiterate its findings with regard to each best interest factor under R.C. 3109.04(F)(1), it must be apparent from the record that the court considered the factors in its decision.” In re B.

2026In re Maxwell, 8 Ohio App.3d 302, 306 (2d Dist. 1982); Francis v. Francis, 2003-Ohio-1940 , ¶ 21 (2d Dist.).

2026Adkins v. Sobb, 39 Ohio St.3d 34 , 3 Although we find the trial court did consider the best interest factors of R.C. 3109.04(F), the better course is for a trial court to demonstrate its full compliance in considering statutory criteria by referencing the relevant statutory provision in its judgment entry and then ensuring consideration is clearly indicated as to the listed factors. -10- Case No. 12-24-08 35 (1988); Wilson v. Jones, 2013-Ohio-4638, ¶ 11 (3d Dist.) (“[w]e will not reverse a finding of contempt by a trial court absent an abuse of discretion”).

2022Id. {¶74} Therefore, when Miranda warnings are given in the middle of a “coordinated and continuing interrogation”, they will likely mislead and “depriv[e] a defendant of knowledge essential to his ability to understand the nature of his rights and the consequences of abandoning them.” Id. quoting Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 424 , 106 S.Ct. 1135 , 89 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986). “[I]t would ordinarily be unrealistic to treat two spates of integrated and proximately conducted questioning as independent interrogations subject to independent evaluation simply because Miranda warnings formally punctuat

2022Id. {¶74} Therefore, when Miranda warnings are given in the middle of a “coordinated and continuing interrogation”, they will likely mislead and “depriv[e] a defendant of knowledge essential to his ability to understand the nature of his rights and the consequences of abandoning them.” Id. quoting Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 424 , 106 S.Ct. 1135 , 89 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986). “[I]t would ordinarily be unrealistic to treat two spates of integrated and proximately conducted questioning as independent interrogations subject to independent evaluation simply because Miranda warnings formally punctuat