time of the dispositional hearing in Ohio

8 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 1993–2015 0 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.

Followed or applied (1)

Case	Followed	Cited
In Re Simsgreen ohioctapp · 1983 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 1 sentence 2009R.C. 2151.23 (A)(1) requires the juvenile court to decide the issue of dependency as of the date or dates specified in the complaint, and not as of any other date. 2 Anderson, Ohio Family Law (2 ed. 1989) 297-298, Section 19.19; See, e.g., In re Sims (1983), 13 Ohio App.3d 37 , 43 ." (Emphasis added.) In re Hood , supra, at *2. {¶ 10} The juvenile court also pointed out that In re D.B. did not presumptively overrule In re Hood , as Mother suggests.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

Case	Cited	Years
In Re T.W., Unpublished Decision (10-13-2005) neutral ohioctapp · 2005 1 sentence 2015Cuyahoga No. 85845, 2005-Ohio-5446, ¶ 27 , citing In re Adoption of Ridenour, 61 Ohio St.3d 319 , 574 N.E.2d 1055 (1991). {¶61} After careful review, we find that the trial court’s judgment granting legal custody with protective supervision to Mother was not in the best interests of the children and, therefore, was an abuse of discretion. {¶62} We acknowledge that at the time of the dispositional hearing Mother had made some progress.	1	2015–2015
In re Adoption of Ridenour green ohio · 1991 2 sentences 2015Cuyahoga No. 85845, 2005-Ohio-5446, ¶ 27 , citing In re Adoption of Ridenour, 61 Ohio St.3d 319 , 574 N.E.2d 1055 (1991). {¶61} After careful review, we find that the trial court’s judgment granting legal custody with protective supervision to Mother was not in the best interests of the children and, therefore, was an abuse of discretion. {¶62} We acknowledge that at the time of the dispositional hearing Mother had made some progress. 2015Cuyahoga No. 85845, 2005-Ohio-5446, ¶ 27 , citing In re Adoption of Ridenour, 61 Ohio St.3d 319 , 574 N.E.2d 1055 (1991). {¶61} After careful review, we find that the trial court’s judgment granting legal custody with protective supervision to Mother was not in the best interests of the children and, therefore, was an abuse of discretion. {¶62} We acknowledge that at the time of the dispositional hearing Mother had made some progress.	1	2015–2015
In re Cunningham green ohio · 1979 1 sentence 2008In re Cunningham (1979), 59 Ohio St.2d 100, 107 . {¶ 35} At the time of the dispositional hearing regarding T.P.-M., the parents had left the paternal grandmother's home and had been living in their own residence for approximately one month.	1	2008–2008
In Re Warren, 2007ca00054 (10-22-2007) green ohioctapp · 2007 1 sentence 2008No. 2007CA00054, 2007-Ohio-5703 , at ¶ 23 . {¶ 57} Here, the Children Services Board was actively investigating the possible placement of the children with the paternal grandparents at the time of the dispositional hearing.	1	2008–2008
In Re Brofford green ohioctapp · 1992 1 sentence 2007She explained that as a result of mother's probation violation in March 2006, and subsequent to her jail time, mother entered Ewason, where she had only been for a little over a month at the time of the dispositional hearing. {¶ 61} In In re M.H. , supra, a case similar to the one at bar, this court stated, "[n]oncompliance with a parent's case plan is a ground for termination of parental rights." Id. at 4\|34, citing In re Brofford (1992), 83 Ohio App.3d 869 , 878 .	1	2007–2007
In Re Ch. O., Unpublished Decision (3-10-2005) green ohioctapp · 2005 1 sentence 2005In re: CH.O., Cuyahoga App. No. 84943, 2005-Ohio-1013, ¶ 36 ; In the Matter of Cooper (Aug. 28, 2001), Cuyahoga App. No. 78848, citing In re Benoit (Nov. 2, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 76128; In the Matter of Nicholson (Jan. 27, 2000), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 75533-39. {¶ 19} In this case, the record reflects C.H. not only acquiesced in the magistrate's decision to proceed with the testimony in the absence of a formally-filed report from K.W.'s GAL, but she encouraged the magistrate to permit the GAL to hear the trial testimony before submitting his written report.	1	2005–2005
In Re Hendrickson green ohioctapp · 1996 1 sentence 1999We agree with the holding of In re Hendrickson, supra that the juvenile court should have apprised appellant, at least briefly, of the potential penalty which he faced in making an admission to the charge of burglary.	1	1999–1999
In Re Hederson green ohioctapp · 1986 2 sentences 1993Cf. In re Nelson (Sept. 22, 1989), Lake App. No. 13-123, unreported, 1989 WL 110818 ; In re Hederson (1986), 30 Ohio App.3d 187 , 30 OBR 329, 507 N.E.2d 418 . 1993Cf. In re Nelson (Sept. 22, 1989), Lake App. No. 13-123, unreported, 1989 WL 110818 ; In re Hederson (1986), 30 Ohio App.3d 187 , 30 OBR 329, 507 N.E.2d 418 .	1	1993–1993

Where else courts name it

NY 58 (1982–2026) CA 44 (2004–2026) WV 16 (2003–2026) IL 15 (1978–2022) OH 8 (1993–2015) SD 5 (1985–2000) AL 2 (2024–2024) IN 2 (2020–2020)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check