Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2151
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.44 (2026)

Complaint after hearing

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
October 1, 1953
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 1 - 100th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

If it appears at the hearing of a child that any person has abused or has aided, induced, caused, encouraged, or contributed to the dependency, neglect, or delinquency of a child or acted in a way tending to cause delinquency in such child, or that a person charged with the care, support, education, or maintenance of any child has failed to support or sufficiently contribute toward the support, education, and maintenance of such child, the juvenile judge may order a complaint filed against such person and proceed to hear and dispose of the case as provided in sections 2151.01 to 2151.54, inclusive, of the Revised Code.

On the request of the judge, the prosecuting attorney shall prosecute all adults charged with violating such sections.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2017–2025 · leading case: State v. Petway, 2020 Ohio 3848 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Petway, 2020 Ohio 3848 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “141 (“In order to verify the accuracy of an inventory, the court may order a guardian to provide any additional evidence that may tend to prove” possession of or knowledge of other assets); R.C. 2151.44 (the juvenile judge may order a complaint filed “[i]f it appears at the…”
In re B.B.C., 2024 Ohio 588 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “Father also asserts that the court’s finding, under R.C. 2151.44(E)(4), that B.B.C. cannot or should not be placed with him was against the manifest weight of the evidence.”
In re K.T., 2017 Ohio 2638 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “as a stipulation to the first prong of the permanent custody test under R.C. 2151.44(E)(16). {¶25} Upon this Court’s reversal of the permanent custody decision, their parental rights were temporarily reinstated, but only until the trial court issued its new permanent custody…”
In re T.R., 2025 Ohio 2531 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025). “While R.C. 2151.44(B)(1)(d) considers whether the child has been in temporary custody for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period, there is “nothing in the plain language of [R.”
In re R.R., 2021 Ohio 3523 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “R.C. 2151.44(B)(1)(a). Mother concedes that the children were in the custody of CPS for the requisite amount of time.”
In re C.R.M., 2024 Ohio 2279 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “R.C. 2151.44(E)(1); In re: L.R.L., 10th Dist.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.44(B)(1)(a): 1 case
In re R.R., 2021 Ohio 3523 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “R.C. 2151.44(B)(1)(a). Mother concedes that the children were in the custody of CPS for the requisite amount of time.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.44(B)(1)(d): 2 cases
In re T.R., 2025 Ohio 2531 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025). “While R.C. 2151.44(B)(1)(d) considers whether the child has been in temporary custody for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period, there is “nothing in the plain language of [R.”
In re R.R., 2021 Ohio 3523 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “R.C. 2151.44(B)(1)(a). Mother concedes that the children were in the custody of CPS for the requisite amount of time.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.44(E)(1): 1 case
In re C.R.M., 2024 Ohio 2279 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “R.C. 2151.44(E)(1); In re: L.R.L., 10th Dist.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.44(E)(16): 1 case
In re K.T., 2017 Ohio 2638 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “as a stipulation to the first prong of the permanent custody test under R.C. 2151.44(E)(16). {¶25} Upon this Court’s reversal of the permanent custody decision, their parental rights were temporarily reinstated, but only until the trial court issued its new permanent custody…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.44(E)(4): 1 case
In re B.B.C., 2024 Ohio 588 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “Father also asserts that the court’s finding, under R.C. 2151.44(E)(4), that B.B.C. cannot or should not be placed with him was against the manifest weight of the evidence.”
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.