Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.312 (2026)

Facilities for holding unruly, neglected, abused or dependent child

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Effective:

June 30, 2011

Latest Legislation:

Senate Bill 122 - 129th General Assembly

PDF:

Download Authenticated PDF

(A) A child alleged to be or adjudicated an unruly child may be held only in the following places:

(1) A certified family foster home or a home approved by the court;

(2) A facility operated by a certified child welfare agency;

(3) Any other suitable place designated by the court.

(B)(1) Except as provided under division (C)(1) of section 2151.311 of the Revised Code, a child alleged to be or adjudicated a neglected child, an abused child, a dependent child, or an unruly child may not be held in any of the following facilities:

(a) A state correctional institution, county, multicounty, or municipal jail or workhouse, or other place in which an adult convicted of a crime, under arrest, or charged with a crime is held;

(b) A secure correctional facility.

(2) Except as provided under sections 2151.27 to 2151.59 of the Revised Code and division (B)(3) of this section and except when a case is transferred under section 2152.12 of the Revised Code, a child alleged to be or adjudicated an unruly child may not be held for more than twenty-four hours in a detention facility. A child alleged to be or adjudicated a neglected child, an abused child, or a dependent child shall not be held in a detention facility.

(3) A child who is alleged to be or adjudicated an unruly child and who is taken into custody on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, as listed in section 1.14 of the Revised Code, may be held in a detention facility until the next succeeding day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1981–2013 · leading case: State v. Grady.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Grady (Ohio Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 6× “355, and not R.C. 2151.312 as cited by appellant since the latter statute provides only for pre-dispositional detention 2 of children, not post-dispositional commitment.”

Doe v. McFaul (D. Ohio 1984). · cites it 2× “Section 2151.312 governs the place of detention of juveniles.”

In Re Samkas (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). “As a result the court held the general power to make “any further disposition” did not override the restrictions in R.C. 2151.312(A)(4) limiting commitment to an adult facility to exceptional circumstances when housing at an appropriate juvenile facility was temporarily…”

Holley v. Higgins (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). “4(A) and R.C. 2151.312 guarantee the right to counsel for all indigent parties in juvenile court proceedings.”

In Re Hennessey (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 7× “Accordingly, in sentencing Hennessey to juvenile confinement, the trial court is limited to sending him to the facilities listed in R.C. 2151.312, and is subject to the express restrictions of R.”

Roberts v. Mahoning Cnty. (N.D. Ohio 2007). · cites it 2× “Juveniles and adult prisoners will be separated in a manner consistent with Section 2151.312 of the Revised Code. These juveniles are those whose criminal case is transferred to the Common Pleas Court for prosecution.”

State Ex Rel. Frazer v. Adm'r/Dir. Juv. Court Det. Home (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). “R.C. 2151.312(A) provides that a child alleged to be a juvenile traffic offender may be held in any suitable place designated by the court.”

In re J.H. (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “1, O.R.C. 2151.312, O.R.C. 2151.31.2, O.R.C.”

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.312(A) — 2 cases

In Re Hennessey (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). “Accordingly, in sentencing Hennessey to juvenile confinement, the trial court is limited to sending him to the facilities listed in R.C. 2151.312, and is subject to the express restrictions of R.”

State Ex Rel. Frazer v. Adm'r/Dir. Juv. Court Det. Home (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). “R.C. 2151.312(A) provides that a child alleged to be a juvenile traffic offender may be held in any suitable place designated by the court.”

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.312(A)(3) — 1 case

State v. Grady (Ohio Ct. App. 1981). “355, and not R.C. 2151.312 as cited by appellant since the latter statute provides only for pre-dispositional detention 2 of children, not post-dispositional commitment.”

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.312(A)(4) — 3 cases

State v. Grady (Ohio Ct. App. 1981). “355, and not R.C. 2151.312 as cited by appellant since the latter statute provides only for pre-dispositional detention 2 of children, not post-dispositional commitment.”

In Re Samkas (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). “As a result the court held the general power to make “any further disposition” did not override the restrictions in R.C. 2151.312(A)(4) limiting commitment to an adult facility to exceptional circumstances when housing at an appropriate juvenile facility was temporarily…”

In Re Hennessey (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). “Accordingly, in sentencing Hennessey to juvenile confinement, the trial court is limited to sending him to the facilities listed in R.C. 2151.312, and is subject to the express restrictions of R.”

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.312(D) — 1 case

In Re Hennessey (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). “Accordingly, in sentencing Hennessey to juvenile confinement, the trial court is limited to sending him to the facilities listed in R.C. 2151.312, and is subject to the express restrictions of R.”

— Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.312(F) — 1 case

In Re Hennessey (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). “Accordingly, in sentencing Hennessey to juvenile confinement, the trial court is limited to sending him to the facilities listed in R.C. 2151.312, and is subject to the express restrictions of R.”

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.