Subject to sections 2151.353 and 2151.412 to 2151.421 of the Revised Code, and any other provision of law that specifies a different duration for a dispositional order, all dispositional orders made by the court under this chapter shall be temporary and shall continue for a period that is designated by the court in its order, until terminated or modified by the court or until the child attains twenty-one years of age.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1956–2023 · leading case: In re Caldwell, 76 Ohio St. 3d 156 (1996).
In re Caldwell, 76 Ohio St. 3d 156 (1996). · cites it 2דIf the court, after ordering consecutive terms of commitment, determines that the child has been rehabilitated before the minimum commitment period ends and could be safely returned to the custody of his or her parents or the community, R.C. 2151.38 authorizes the supervising…”
State v. Robinson, 649 N.E.2d 18 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1994). “This predecessor to R.C. 2151.38 provided: "The disposition of a child or any evidence given in the court shall not be admissible as evidence against the child in any case or proceeding in any other court, nor shall such disposition or evidence operate to disqualify a child in…”
In re Long, 492 N.E.2d 878 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1985). · cites it 5ד” It is apparent from the record before us that the juvenile court did schedule a hearing as required by statute to determine whether Long had violated the terms and conditions of his parole.”
In re Kimble, 682 N.E.2d 1066 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1996). · cites it 2דThis error was a violation of Nichalas’ right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article One, Section Sixteen of the Ohio Constitution, and R.C. 2151.38(B)(2)(e). “II. The trial court erred by denying Nichalas his right to…”
In re Caldwell, 76 Ohio St. 3d 156 (1996). · cites it 2דIf the court, after ordering consecutive terms of commitment, determines that the child has been rehabilitated before the minimum commitment period ends and could be safely returned to the custody of his or her parents or the community, R.C. 2151.38 authorizes the supervising…”
In re Royal, 725 N.E.2d 685 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 1999). “This error was a violation of Daniel’s right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Article One, Section Sixteen of the Ohio Constitution, R.C. 2151.38(B)(2)(c).” Appellant argues that the juvenile court failed to comply with Juv.”
In re Whittington, 233 N.E.2d 333 (Ohio Ct. App. 1967). · cites it 2דOn the other hand, when the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court is not relinquished and a child is not charged, tried, convicted or imprisoned for the crime of unlawfully, purposely and maliciously killing another contrary to the criminal statutes of Ohio but is retained before…”
State v. Whittington, 245 N.E.2d 364 (Ohio Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1969). · cites it 2ד35, Revised Code, the possibilities of disposition are numerous, ranging from probation under supervision in the child’s own home to commitment to an institution for juveniles for training and rehabilitation until a maximum age of twenty-one years, Section 2151.38, Revised Code.…”
In re Woodson, 649 N.E.2d 320 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1994). · cites it 2ד34(C)(3) to juveniles is significantly mitigated by R.C. 2151.38, which authorizes the juvenile court to release juveniles prior to the expiration of their prescribed minimum period of detention if the court deems such release appropriate.”
In re I.J., 2023-Ohio-2024. “H-11-003, 2012-Ohio-1105 , ¶ 11; R.C. 2151.38; R.C. 2152.22(A) (“[D]ispositional orders made by the court under this chapter shall be temporary and 7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS shall continue for a period that is designated by the court in its order, until terminated…”
In re Bracewell, 709 N.E.2d 938 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1998). “R.C. 2151.38 states: “(A) When a child is committed to the legal custody of the department of youth services, the jurisdiction of the juvenile court with respect to the child so committed shall cease and terminate at the time of commitment * * *.”
In re Rule, 203 N.E.2d 501 (Ohio Ct. App. 1963). · cites it 2דNeither the judgment of October 2, 1961, nor that of September 25, 1962, purport to commit, as provided by Section 2151.38, Revised Code, any child “to the Boys’ or Girls’ Industrial School, or to the Ohio State Reformatory, or to the permanent custody of the Department of…”
In re Edwards, 690 N.E.2d 22 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1996).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.38(B)(2)(c): 2 cases
In re Royal, 725 N.E.2d 685 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 1999). “This error was a violation of Daniel’s right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Article One, Section Sixteen of the Ohio Constitution, R.C. 2151.38(B)(2)(c).” Appellant argues that the juvenile court failed to comply with Juv.”
In re Sanders, 595 N.E.2d 974 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1991).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.38(B)(2)(e): 1 case
In re Kimble, 682 N.E.2d 1066 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1996). “This error was a violation of Nichalas’ right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article One, Section Sixteen of the Ohio Constitution, and R.C. 2151.38(B)(2)(e). “II. The trial court erred by denying Nichalas his right to…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.38(C): 3 cases
In re Kimble, 682 N.E.2d 1066 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1996). “This error was a violation of Nichalas’ right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article One, Section Sixteen of the Ohio Constitution, and R.C. 2151.38(B)(2)(e). “II. The trial court erred by denying Nichalas his right to…”
In re Long, 492 N.E.2d 878 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1985). “” It is apparent from the record before us that the juvenile court did schedule a hearing as required by statute to determine whether Long had violated the terms and conditions of his parole.”
In re Smith, 513 N.E.2d 1387 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 1986).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.38(C)(1): 1 case
In re Howard, 778 N.E.2d 1106 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 2002).
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.