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.
6 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2018–2026 5 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 D.D.green1 sentence2026In re D.D., 2024-Ohio-5858, at ¶ 25 (12th Dist.). {¶ 29} Given the record in this case, the juvenile court's decision to grant WCCS's motion for permanent custody was proper and without error: it places S.F.'s best interests at the forefront of these proceedings rather than focusing on what Grandmother wants or what Grandmother herself believes is in S.F.'s best interest. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hensgengreen1 sentence2025"Narcan is a form of naloxone that is used for the emergency treatment of a known or suspected opioid overdose." State v. Hensgen, 2017-Ohio-8793, ¶ 2, fn. 1 (12th Dist.). -2- Warren CA2025-07-062 CA2025-07-063 credit, 120 days of which were suspended. | 1 | 1 |
In re T.L.C.green1 sentence2025See generally In re T.L.C., 2023-Ohio-3929 , ¶ 6- 7 (12th Dist.) (where grandmother argued "the principles underlying her procedural due process rights required the juvenile court to give her an opportunity to be heard and - 10 - Warren CA2025-06-049 present evidence in support of her legal custody motions before the juvenile court could grant permanent custody of [her two grandchildren] to WCCS"). | 1 | 1 |
In re K.K.green1 sentence2025In so holding, we note that "the completion of case plan requirements does not preclude a grant of permanent custody." In re K.K., 2023-Ohio-400, ¶ 51 (12th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
In re D.H.green1 sentence2025The juvenile court found this background was important for the reader to know given the court's own initial confusion of the facts in the absence of a basic understanding of "the children services history this family has." Therefore, rather than being offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted, the evidence for which Grandfather now complains was being offered as necessary background information to provide proper context in which the juvenile court could base its decision on WCCS' motion for permanent custody. {¶ 32} "Statements are not hearsay if they are not [being] offere | 1 | 1 |
In re S.D.green1 sentence2025See In re H.G., 2015-Ohio-1764 , ¶ 24 (12th Dist.) (noting that "the juvenile court's finding that a grant of permanent custody to [a children services agency] was in [a child's] best interest necessarily implied that an extension of temporary custody was not"); see also In re T.C., 2019-Ohio-3008, ¶ 36 (5th Dist.), citing In re S.D., 2016-Ohio-1493, ¶ 30 (9th Dist.) ("[i]f permanent custody was in the children's best interests, the alternative disposition of extending temporary custody was not"). {¶ 63} Therefore, because the record fully supports the juvenile court's decision finding it was | 1 | 1 |
In re T.C.green1 sentence2025See In re H.G., 2015-Ohio-1764 , ¶ 24 (12th Dist.) (noting that "the juvenile court's finding that a grant of permanent custody to [a children services agency] was in [a child's] best interest necessarily implied that an extension of temporary custody was not"); see also In re T.C., 2019-Ohio-3008, ¶ 36 (5th Dist.), citing In re S.D., 2016-Ohio-1493, ¶ 30 (9th Dist.) ("[i]f permanent custody was in the children's best interests, the alternative disposition of extending temporary custody was not"). {¶ 63} Therefore, because the record fully supports the juvenile court's decision finding it was | 1 | 1 |
In re R.C.green1 sentence2025"A juvenile court may also consider any other factors it deems relevant to the child's best interest." In re R.C., 2025-Ohio-5150, ¶ 54 (12th Dist.). {¶ 39} Grandfather argues the juvenile court "mis-weighed" the best interest factors when deciding to grant WCCS' motion for permanent custody. | 1 | 1 |
In re E.V.green1 sentence2025However, unlike Grandfather who only challenged the juvenile court's finding as being against the manifest weight of the evidence, Grandmother argues the juvenile court's finding was both against the manifest weight of the evidence and not supported by sufficient evidence. {¶ 57} But, while it may be true that challenges to the manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence present distinct legal concepts that are both quantitatively and qualitatively different, In re Z.C., 2023-Ohio-4703, at ¶ 13 , "a finding that a judgment is - 22 - Warren CA2025-07-062 CA2025-07-063 supported by the manif | 1 | 1 |
In re A.V.green1 sentence2025This is because, as it is also now well established, "it is the juvenile court, not this court, that is in the best position to determine the credibility of the witnesses and determine the weight to be given to the evidence." In re A.V., 2024-Ohio-1091, ¶ 36 (12th Dist.). {¶ 42} The evidence in this case fully supports the juvenile court's decision finding it was in G.B.'s best interest to grant WCCS' motion for permanent custody. | 1 | 1 |
In re T.W.green1 sentence2025See, e.g., In re T.W., 2013-Ohio-1754, ¶ 8-9 (1st Dist.) (father lacked standing to appeal the denial of great-grandmother's motion for legal custody because father could not raise issues on behalf of a nonappealing third-party in a permanent custody proceeding). | 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 Z.C.
green
1 sentence2025However, unlike Grandfather who only challenged the juvenile court's finding as being against the manifest weight of the evidence, Grandmother argues the juvenile court's finding was both against the manifest weight of the evidence and not supported by sufficient evidence. {¶ 57} But, while it may be true that challenges to the manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence present distinct legal concepts that are both quantitatively and qualitatively different, In re Z.C., 2023-Ohio-4703, at ¶ 13 , "a finding that a judgment is - 22 - Warren CA2025-07-062 CA2025-07-063 supported by the manif | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In re N.G.
green
1 sentence2025Id. {¶ 29} R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) sets forth the statutory standard for permanent custody applicable to this case. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In re K.M.
green
1 sentence2021Butler No. CA2019-01-015, 2019-Ohio-1833, ¶ 67 . {¶ 45} In light of the foregoing, because the record indicates M.G. is now "doing great" in a stable and secure environment under the care of her foster parents, we agree with the juvenile court's decision to grant WCCS' motion for permanent custody. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Meyer v. Nebraska
green
2 sentences2018Specifically, B.C. wished to return to Mother's care, Mother completed multiple case plan objectives, and Mother demonstrated the ability to parent during visitation. {¶ 13} "The rights to conceive and to raise one's children have been deemed 'essential' * * *." Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 , 92 S.Ct. 1208 (1972), quoting Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 , 43 S.Ct. 625 (1923). 2018Specifically, B.C. wished to return to Mother's care, Mother completed multiple case plan objectives, and Mother demonstrated the ability to parent during visitation. {¶ 13} "The rights to conceive and to raise one's children have been deemed 'essential' * * *." Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 , 92 S.Ct. 1208 (1972), quoting Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 , 43 S.Ct. 625 (1923). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Stanley v. Illinois
green
2 sentences2018Specifically, B.C. wished to return to Mother's care, Mother completed multiple case plan objectives, and Mother demonstrated the ability to parent during visitation. {¶ 13} "The rights to conceive and to raise one's children have been deemed 'essential' * * *." Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 , 92 S.Ct. 1208 (1972), quoting Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 , 43 S.Ct. 625 (1923). 2018Specifically, B.C. wished to return to Mother's care, Mother completed multiple case plan objectives, and Mother demonstrated the ability to parent during visitation. {¶ 13} "The rights to conceive and to raise one's children have been deemed 'essential' * * *." Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 , 92 S.Ct. 1208 (1972), quoting Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 , 43 S.Ct. 625 (1923). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.