(1) "Addiction services" and "alcohol and drug addiction services" have the same meanings as in section 5119.01 of the Revised Code.
(2) "Controlled substance" has the same meaning as in section 3719.01 of the Revised Code.
(3) "Newborn" means a child who is less than thirty days old.
(B) A public children services agency shall not file a complaint pursuant to section 2151.27 of the Revised Code regarding a newborn solely because the newborn's mother used a controlled substance while pregnant if the mother did all of the following:
(1) Before the end of the twentieth week of pregnancy, enrolled in a drug treatment program provided by a provider of addiction services or alcohol and drug addiction services;
(2) Successfully completed the program or is in the process of completing the program and is in compliance with the program's terms and conditions as determined by the program;
(3) Maintained her regularly scheduled appointments and prenatal care recommended by her health care provider for the remaining duration of her pregnancy.
(C) If a pregnant woman enrolled in a drug treatment program after the end of the twentieth week of pregnancy, the court, in its discretion, may do either of the following in lieu of considering a complaint filed pursuant to section 2151.27 of the Revised Code based solely on the newborn's mother's use of a controlled substance while pregnant:
(1) Hold the complaint in abeyance if the court finds that the woman is in the process of completing the program and maintained her regularly scheduled appointments and prenatal care recommended by her health care provider for the remaining duration of her pregnancy;
(2) Dismiss the complaint if the court finds that the woman successfully completed the program and maintained her regularly scheduled appointments and prenatal care recommended by her health care provider for the remaining duration of her pregnancy.
(D) This section does not prevent a public children services agency from filing a complaint pursuant to section 2151.27 of the Revised Code if the public children services agency determines that the newborn's mother, or any other adult caring for the newborn, is unable to provide adequate parental care.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 152
cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1955–2025 · leading case: Agee v. Russell
Agee v. Russell (2001) ohio · cites it 31ד03, does not apply to the juvenile bindover criteria set forth in R.C. 2151.26.” Shortly following our decision in Hanning , Agee filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Warren County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, his prison warden, to release him from…”
State v. Aalim (Slip Opinion) (2017) ohio · cites it 8דHowever, as part of Ohio’s response to rising juvenile crime, in 1996, the General Assembly enacted 2 January Term, 2017 former R.C. 2151.26, now R.C. 2152.12,1 State v.”
State v. Walls (2002) ohio · cites it 12דAt the center of this jurisdictional argument is his belief that application of *440 the 1997 statutes, R.C. 2151.26 and 2151.011(B)(6), violated the RetroactivityClause of the Ohio Constitution.”
State v. Walls (2002) ohio · cites it 12דrson who is under the age of eighteen years, except that any child who violates a federal or state law or municipal ordinance prior to attaining eighteen years of age shall be deemed a ‘child’ irrespective of his age at the time the complaint is filed or hearing had on the…”
State v. Iacona (2001) ohio · cites it 10ד2d 568, 570-571 , quoting R.C. 2151.26 as in effect in 1971 (133 Ohio Laws, Part II, 2049); State v.”
State v. Wilson (1995) ohio · cites it 15דThe issues certified to this court are: (1) “In the absence of a bindover from juvenile court pursuant to R.C. 2151.26, does the general division of the common pteas [sic ] court have jurisdiction to try, convict and sentence a juvenile defendant?” and (2) “In the absence of the…”
State v. Hanning (2000) ohio · cites it 18ד03, applies to juvenile bindover criteria set forth in R.C. 2151.26. For the reasons that follow, we find that it does not and we therefore affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.”
Johnson v. Timmerman-Cooper (2001) ohio · cites it 13דInstead, we merely determined what R.C. 2151.26 has meant since its enactment.”
State v. Iacona (2001) ohio · cites it 14ד] Juvenile court—Transfer of case for criminal prosecution—Prosecutor under duty to disclose to juvenile respondent all evidence in state’s possession favorable to juvenile respondent and material either to guilt or punishment that is known at time of mandatory bindover hearing…”
Agee v. Russell (2001) ohio · cites it 34ד03, does not apply to the juvenile bindover criteria set forth in R.C. 2151.26.” {¶ 10} Shortly following our decision in Hanning, Agee filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Warren County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, his prison warden, to release him…”
State v. Hanning (2000) ohio · cites it 25ד03, does not apply to the juvenile bindover criteria set forth in R.C. 2151.26. 1. The mandatory bindover provision of R.”
State v. Walls (2002) ohio“At the center of this jurisdictional argument is his belief that application of *440 the 1997 statutes, R.C. 2151.26 and 2151.011(B)(6), violated the RetroactivityClause of the Ohio Constitution.”
State v. Walls (2002) ohio“rson who is under the age of eighteen years, except that any child who violates a federal or state law or municipal ordinance prior to attaining eighteen years of age shall be deemed a ‘child’ irrespective of his age at the time the complaint is filed or hearing had on the…”
State v. Wilson (1995) ohio“The issues certified to this court are: (1) “In the absence of a bindover from juvenile court pursuant to R.C. 2151.26, does the general division of the common pteas [sic ] court have jurisdiction to try, convict and sentence a juvenile defendant?” and (2) “In the absence of the…”
State v. Iacona (2001) ohio“2d 568, 570-571 , quoting R.C. 2151.26 as in effect in 1971 (133 Ohio Laws, Part II, 2049); State v.”
State v. Wilson (1995) ohio“The issues certified to this court are: (1) “In the absence of a bindover from juvenile court pursuant to R.C. 2151.26, does the general division of the common pteas [sic ] court have jurisdiction to try, convict and sentence a juvenile defendant?” and (2) “In the absence of the…”
State v. Iacona (2001) ohio“] Juvenile court—Transfer of case for criminal prosecution—Prosecutor under duty to disclose to juvenile respondent all evidence in state’s possession favorable to juvenile respondent and material either to guilt or punishment that is known at time of mandatory bindover hearing…”
Agee v. Russell (2001) ohio“03, does not apply to the juvenile bindover criteria set forth in R.C. 2151.26.” Shortly following our decision in Hanning , Agee filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Warren County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, his prison warden, to release him from…”
Agee v. Russell (2001) ohio“03, does not apply to the juvenile bindover criteria set forth in R.C. 2151.26.” {¶ 10} Shortly following our decision in Hanning, Agee filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Warren County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, his prison warden, to release him…”
State v. Iacona (2001) ohio“] Juvenile court—Transfer of case for criminal prosecution—Prosecutor under duty to disclose to juvenile respondent all evidence in state’s possession favorable to juvenile respondent and material either to guilt or punishment that is known at time of mandatory bindover hearing…”
State v. Iacona (2001) ohio“2d 568, 570-571 , quoting R.C. 2151.26 as in effect in 1971 (133 Ohio Laws, Part II, 2049); State v.”
Agee v. Russell (2001) ohio“03, does not apply to the juvenile bindover criteria set forth in R.C. 2151.26.” Shortly following our decision in Hanning , Agee filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Warren County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, his prison warden, to release him from…”
Agee v. Russell (2001) ohio“03, does not apply to the juvenile bindover criteria set forth in R.C. 2151.26.” Shortly following our decision in Hanning , Agee filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Warren County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, his prison warden, to release him from…”
State v. Aalim (Slip Opinion) (2017) ohio“However, as part of Ohio’s response to rising juvenile crime, in 1996, the General Assembly enacted 2 January Term, 2017 former R.C. 2151.26, now R.C. 2152.12,1 State v.”
Agee v. Russell (2001) ohio“03, does not apply to the juvenile bindover criteria set forth in R.C. 2151.26.” {¶ 10} Shortly following our decision in Hanning, Agee filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Warren County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, his prison warden, to release him…”
Agee v. Russell (2001) ohio“03, does not apply to the juvenile bindover criteria set forth in R.C. 2151.26.” Shortly following our decision in Hanning , Agee filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Warren County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, his prison warden, to release him from…”
State v. Iacona (2001) ohio“2d 568, 570-571 , quoting R.C. 2151.26 as in effect in 1971 (133 Ohio Laws, Part II, 2049); State v.”
State v. Iacona (2001) ohio“] Juvenile court—Transfer of case for criminal prosecution—Prosecutor under duty to disclose to juvenile respondent all evidence in state’s possession favorable to juvenile respondent and material either to guilt or punishment that is known at time of mandatory bindover hearing…”
Agee v. Russell (2001) ohio“03, does not apply to the juvenile bindover criteria set forth in R.C. 2151.26.” {¶ 10} Shortly following our decision in Hanning, Agee filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Warren County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, his prison warden, to release him…”
Agee v. Russell (2001) ohio“03, does not apply to the juvenile bindover criteria set forth in R.C. 2151.26.” Shortly following our decision in Hanning , Agee filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Warren County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, his prison warden, to release him from…”
State v. Aalim (Slip Opinion) (2017) ohio“However, as part of Ohio’s response to rising juvenile crime, in 1996, the General Assembly enacted 2 January Term, 2017 former R.C. 2151.26, now R.C. 2152.12,1 State v.”
State v. Hanning (2000) ohio“03, applies to juvenile bindover criteria set forth in R.C. 2151.26. For the reasons that follow, we find that it does not and we therefore affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.”
Johnson v. Timmerman-Cooper (2001) ohio“Instead, we merely determined what R.C. 2151.26 has meant since its enactment.”
State v. Hanning (2000) ohio“03, does not apply to the juvenile bindover criteria set forth in R.C. 2151.26. 1. The mandatory bindover provision of R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.26(C) — 16 cases
Agee v. Russell (2001) ohio“03, does not apply to the juvenile bindover criteria set forth in R.C. 2151.26.” Shortly following our decision in Hanning , Agee filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Warren County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, his prison warden, to release him from…”
State v. Hanning (2000) ohio“03, applies to juvenile bindover criteria set forth in R.C. 2151.26. For the reasons that follow, we find that it does not and we therefore affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.”
State v. Iacona (2001) ohio“2d 568, 570-571 , quoting R.C. 2151.26 as in effect in 1971 (133 Ohio Laws, Part II, 2049); State v.”
Johnson v. Timmerman-Cooper (2001) ohio“Instead, we merely determined what R.C. 2151.26 has meant since its enactment.”
State v. Hanning (2000) ohio“03, does not apply to the juvenile bindover criteria set forth in R.C. 2151.26. 1. The mandatory bindover provision of R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.26(C)(1) — 2 cases
State v. Hanning (2000) ohio“03, does not apply to the juvenile bindover criteria set forth in R.C. 2151.26. 1. The mandatory bindover provision of R.”
Agee v. Russell (2001) ohio“03, does not apply to the juvenile bindover criteria set forth in R.C. 2151.26.” Shortly following our decision in Hanning , Agee filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Warren County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, his prison warden, to release him from…”
Agee v. Russell (2001) ohio“03, does not apply to the juvenile bindover criteria set forth in R.C. 2151.26.” {¶ 10} Shortly following our decision in Hanning, Agee filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Warren County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellee, his prison warden, to release him…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.26(C)(1)(c) — 4 cases
State v. Hanning (2000) ohio“03, applies to juvenile bindover criteria set forth in R.C. 2151.26. For the reasons that follow, we find that it does not and we therefore affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.”
State v. Hanning (2000) ohio“03, does not apply to the juvenile bindover criteria set forth in R.C. 2151.26. 1. The mandatory bindover provision of R.”
State v. Hanning (2000) ohio“03, applies to juvenile bindover criteria set forth in R.C. 2151.26. For the reasons that follow, we find that it does not and we therefore affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.”
State v. Hanning (2000) ohio“03, does not apply to the juvenile bindover criteria set forth in R.C. 2151.26. 1. The mandatory bindover provision of R.”
State v. Wilson (1995) ohio“The issues certified to this court are: (1) “In the absence of a bindover from juvenile court pursuant to R.C. 2151.26, does the general division of the common pteas [sic ] court have jurisdiction to try, convict and sentence a juvenile defendant?” and (2) “In the absence of the…”
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.