Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2151
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.01 (2026)

Liberal interpretation and construction

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
January 1, 2002
Latest Legislation:
Senate Bill 179 - 123rd General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

The sections in Chapter 2151. of the Revised Code, with the exception of those sections providing for the criminal prosecution of adults, shall be liberally interpreted and construed so as to effectuate the following purposes:

(A) To provide for the care, protection, and mental and physical development of children subject to Chapter 2151. of the Revised Code, whenever possible, in a family environment, separating the child from the child's parents only when necessary for the child's welfare or in the interests of public safety;

(B) To provide judicial procedures through which Chapters 2151. and 2152. of the Revised Code are executed and enforced, and in which the parties are assured of a fair hearing, and their constitutional and other legal rights are recognized and enforced.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 347 cases (109 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: State v. Morgan (Slip Opinion), 2017-Ohio-7565, 103 N.E.3d 784 (Ohio 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Morgan (Slip Opinion), 2017-Ohio-7565, 103 N.E.3d 784 (Ohio 2017). · cites it 10× “152 (1970). That statute mandated that the statutes in R.”
State v. Smith (Slip Opinion), 2022-Ohio-274, 194 N.E.3d 297 (Ohio 2022). · cites it 6× “{¶ 19} Within the statutes governing juveniles, R.C. 2151.01 specifically provides that the sections of R.”
In re C.F., 113 Ohio St. 3d 73 (Ohio 2007). · cites it 3× “Crossley, Defining Reasonable Efforts: Demystifying the State’s Burden Under Federal Child Protection Legislation (2003), 12 B.U.Pub. Int.L.J. 259, 260.”
State ex rel. Allen Cty. Child. Servs. Bd. v. Mercer Cty. Common Pleas Court, Prob. Div. (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-7382, 81 N.E.3d 380 (Ohio 2016). · cites it 4× “2d 816 , at ¶ 28, citing R.C. 2151.01. {¶ 59} As we have explained previously, [u]ltimately, parental interests are subordinate to the child’s interest when determining the appropriate resolution of a petition to terminate parental rights.”
In Re B.C., 2014-Ohio-4558, 21 N.E.3d 308 (Ohio 2014). · cites it 4× “R.C. 2151.01 requires courts to construe those provisions liberally in favor of retaining the family unit, “separating the child from the child’s parents only when necessary for the child’s welfare or in the interests of public safety.”
In re K.C., 2017-Ohio-8383, 99 N.E.3d 1061 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 8× “In particular, was the child aggrieved below, and is she asserting her own legal interest as opposed to that of a third party? Citing R.C. 2151.01, Z.H. held that a child could appeal the termination of his parents’ parental rights because he had a legal interest in being cared…”
In re C.P., 2012-Ohio-1446, 131 Ohio St. 3d 513 (Ohio 2012). · cites it 4× “2d 1367 (1996), [t]he legislative purpose regarding [juveniles] has been laid out in R.C. 2151.01: to provide for the care, protection, and mental and physical development of children, to protect the public from the wrongful acts committed by juvenile delinquents, and to…”
In re K.K., 2022-Ohio-3888 (Ohio 2022). · cites it 4× “” R.C. 2151.01(A). Construing the dismissal provision in R.”
In Re A.B., 852 N.E.2d 1187 (Ohio 2006). · cites it 4× “{¶ 38} R.C. 2151.01 states that R.C. Chapter 2151 “shall be liberally interpreted and construed so as to effectuate the following purposes: {¶ 39} “(A) To provide for the care, protection, and mental and physical development of children subject to Chapter 2151.”
In re N.J., 2017-Ohio-7466 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “{¶ 13} With regard to construing the statutes involved here, R.C. 2151.01(A) provides 2. It is not apparent why the magistrate decided the matter pursuant to a "magistrate's order" as opposed to a "magistrate's decision.”
In re M.D., 527 N.E.2d 286 (Ohio 1988). · cites it 3× “Appellant, in her motion to dismiss the complaint against her in the trial court, argued that her prosecution for complicity to rape was repugnant to R.C. 2151.01, Juv. R. 9(A), and local intake policy as to juvenile sex offenses, all of which, she argued, “implicates not only…”
In Re D.S., 2016-Ohio-1027, 54 N.E.3d 1184 (Ohio 2016). · cites it 2× “We have also explained that within the juvenile system, punishment occurs only as a means of working toward rehabilitation: The legislative purpose regarding [juveniles] has been laid out in R.C. 2151.01: to provide for the care, protection, and mental and physical development…”
Show all 347 citing cases →
Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.01(A): 158 cases
State v. Morgan (Slip Opinion), 2017-Ohio-7565, 103 N.E.3d 784 (Ohio 2017). “152 (1970). That statute mandated that the statutes in R.”
In re N.J., 2017-Ohio-7466 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “{¶ 13} With regard to construing the statutes involved here, R.C. 2151.01(A) provides 2. It is not apparent why the magistrate decided the matter pursuant to a "magistrate's order" as opposed to a "magistrate's decision.”
State ex rel. Allen Cty. Child. Servs. Bd. v. Mercer Cty. Common Pleas Court, Prob. Div. (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-7382, 81 N.E.3d 380 (Ohio 2016). “2d 816 , at ¶ 28, citing R.C. 2151.01. {¶ 59} As we have explained previously, [u]ltimately, parental interests are subordinate to the child’s interest when determining the appropriate resolution of a petition to terminate parental rights.”
In Re B.C., 2014-Ohio-4558, 21 N.E.3d 308 (Ohio 2014). “R.C. 2151.01 requires courts to construe those provisions liberally in favor of retaining the family unit, “separating the child from the child’s parents only when necessary for the child’s welfare or in the interests of public safety.”
In re C.F., 113 Ohio St. 3d 73 (Ohio 2007). “Crossley, Defining Reasonable Efforts: Demystifying the State’s Burden Under Federal Child Protection Legislation (2003), 12 B.U.Pub. Int.L.J. 259, 260.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.01(A)(2): 1 case
In re N.E., 2010-Ohio-6012 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.01(B): 17 cases
State v. Morgan (Slip Opinion), 2017-Ohio-7565, 103 N.E.3d 784 (Ohio 2017). “152 (1970). That statute mandated that the statutes in R.”
State v. Smith (Slip Opinion), 2022-Ohio-274, 194 N.E.3d 297 (Ohio 2022). “{¶ 19} Within the statutes governing juveniles, R.C. 2151.01 specifically provides that the sections of R.”
In re C.P., 2012-Ohio-1446, 131 Ohio St. 3d 513 (Ohio 2012). “2d 1367 (1996), [t]he legislative purpose regarding [juveniles] has been laid out in R.C. 2151.01: to provide for the care, protection, and mental and physical development of children, to protect the public from the wrongful acts committed by juvenile delinquents, and to…”
In re K.K., 2022-Ohio-3888 (Ohio 2022). “” R.C. 2151.01(A). Construing the dismissal provision in R.”
In re K.C., 2017-Ohio-8383, 99 N.E.3d 1061 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “In particular, was the child aggrieved below, and is she asserting her own legal interest as opposed to that of a third party? Citing R.C. 2151.01, Z.H. held that a child could appeal the termination of his parents’ parental rights because he had a legal interest in being cared…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.01(B)(1): 1 case
State v. Coleman, 691 N.E.2d 369 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.01(B)(1)(a): 1 case
State v. Tillman, 695 N.E.2d 792 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.01(B)(11): 1 case
In re Palmer, 465 N.E.2d 1312 (Ohio 1984).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.01(C): 10 cases
State v. Morgan (Slip Opinion), 2017-Ohio-7565, 103 N.E.3d 784 (Ohio 2017). “152 (1970). That statute mandated that the statutes in R.”
In re Schmidt, 496 N.E.2d 952 (Ohio 1986).
In re Riddle, 680 N.E.2d 1227 (Ohio 1997).
In Re Stacey S., 737 N.E.2d 92 (Ohio Ct. App. 1999).
In re Wieland, 733 N.E.2d 1127 (Ohio 2000).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.01(D): 3 cases
State v. Morgan (Slip Opinion), 2017-Ohio-7565, 103 N.E.3d 784 (Ohio 2017). “152 (1970). That statute mandated that the statutes in R.”
State ex rel. Asberry v. Payne, 693 N.E.2d 794 (Ohio 1998).
State ex rel. Asberry v. Payne, 82 Ohio St. 3d 44 (Ohio 1998).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.