(A) At any hearing in which a court is asked to modify or terminate an order of disposition issued under section 2151.353, 2151.415, or 2151.417 of the Revised Code, the court, in determining whether to return the child to the child's parents, shall consider whether it is in the best interest of the child.
(B) An order of disposition issued under division (A)(3) of section 2151.353, division (A)(3) of section 2151.415, or section 2151.417 of the Revised Code granting legal custody of a child to a person is intended to be permanent in nature. A court shall not modify or terminate an order granting legal custody of a child unless it finds, based on facts that have arisen since the order was issued or that were unknown to the court at that time, that a change has occurred in the circumstances of the child or the person who was granted legal custody, and that modification or termination of the order is necessary to serve the best interest of the child.
Last updated January 1, 2025 at 4:50 AM
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 155
cases (61 in the last 5 years), 1959–2026 · leading case: In re J.R.P.
In re J.R.P. (2018) ohioctapp · cites it 18ד{¶ 22} Appellants' second, third and fifth assignments of error all relate to the trial court's application of R.C. 2151.42 rather than R.C. 3109.04 in making its custody determination in the instant matter.”
In re I.E. (2020) ohioctapp · cites it 11ד{¶ 14} R.C. 2151.42 does not define the phrase “change in circumstances.”
In re A.M. (2017) ohioctapp · cites it 12ד{¶10} In considering Mother’s motion to modify legal custody, the juvenile court as a practical matter applied the standard set forth in R.C. 2151.42(B), which is applicable in cases 5 where a child who was previously adjudicated dependent, neglected, or abused was placed in the…”
In re A.P. (2012) ohioctapp · cites it 11ד14, 1999), the reasoning of Burmeister has no application here because that appeal predated enactment of Section 2151.42 of the Revised Code. {¶26} Rather than pursuing a modification or termination of the prior legal custody order under Section 2151.”
In re C.B. (2011) ohio · cites it 3דR.C. 2151.42. 2 Thus, the juvenile court’s order determined the action and prevented any further judgment.”
In re L.C.C. (2018) ohioctapp · cites it 4דto appellant, pursuant to R.C. 2151.42(A), did not have the effect of terminating all appellant's residual parental rights, privileges, and responsibilities.”
In re A.G. (2026) ohioctapp · cites it 22דIn fact, the trial court’s statutory authority to modify prior dispositional orders makes explicit reference to R.C. 2151.42, “if applicable[.]” {¶18} R.”
In re E.E.D. (2022) ohioctapp · cites it 7ד2 (“Legal custody may be modified or terminated only by following the procedures identified in R.C. 2151.42.”); In re L.H., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.”
In re James (2007) ohio · cites it 2ד” {¶ 26} Finally, with respect to the views of the dissenters, we note that R.C. 2151.42, styled “Consideration of whether return to parents is in best interest of child; certain orders granting legal custody intended to be permanent,” also addresses juvenile custody cases.”
In re N.G. (2012) ohioctapp · cites it 6דafter it adjudicated her a dependent and neglected child and LCCS was authorized to seek a modification or termination of the trial court’s prior dispositional order “at any time[,]” it was also necessary that any modification of the prior dispositional order comply with R.C.…”
In re A.P. (2021) ohioctapp · cites it 10ד353, not R.C. 2151.42, the trial court was required to consider only the best interest of the child.”
In re A.S. (2016) ohioctapp · cites it 4דA different statute, R.C. 2151.42, governs the modification or termination of dispositional orders in dependency cases.”
In re J.R.P. (2018) ohioctapp“{¶ 22} Appellants' second, third and fifth assignments of error all relate to the trial court's application of R.C. 2151.42 rather than R.C. 3109.04 in making its custody determination in the instant matter.”
In re I.E. (2020) ohioctapp“{¶ 14} R.C. 2151.42 does not define the phrase “change in circumstances.”
In re C.B. (2011) ohio“R.C. 2151.42. 2 Thus, the juvenile court’s order determined the action and prevented any further judgment.”
In re L.C.C. (2018) ohioctapp“to appellant, pursuant to R.C. 2151.42(A), did not have the effect of terminating all appellant's residual parental rights, privileges, and responsibilities.”
In re A.M. (2017) ohioctapp“{¶10} In considering Mother’s motion to modify legal custody, the juvenile court as a practical matter applied the standard set forth in R.C. 2151.42(B), which is applicable in cases 5 where a child who was previously adjudicated dependent, neglected, or abused was placed in the…”
In re I.E. (2020) ohioctapp“{¶ 14} R.C. 2151.42 does not define the phrase “change in circumstances.”
In re A.P. (2012) ohioctapp“14, 1999), the reasoning of Burmeister has no application here because that appeal predated enactment of Section 2151.42 of the Revised Code. {¶26} Rather than pursuing a modification or termination of the prior legal custody order under Section 2151.”
In re A.G. (2026) ohioctapp“In fact, the trial court’s statutory authority to modify prior dispositional orders makes explicit reference to R.C. 2151.42, “if applicable[.]” {¶18} R.”
In re E.E.D. (2022) ohioctapp“2 (“Legal custody may be modified or terminated only by following the procedures identified in R.C. 2151.42.”); In re L.H., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.”
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.