(A)(1) Except as otherwise provided in division (A)(2) of this section, whoever violates division (D)(2) or (3) of section 2151.313 or division (A)(4) or (I)(2) of section 2151.421 of the Revised Code is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.
(2) Whoever violates division (A)(4) of section 2151.421 of the Revised Code knowing that a child has been abused or neglected and knowing that the person who committed the abuse or neglect was a cleric or another person, other than a volunteer, designated by a church, religious society, or faith acting as a leader, official, or delegate on behalf of the church, religious society, or faith, is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree if the person who violates division (A)(4) of this section and the person who committed the abuse or neglect belong to the same church, religious society, or faith.
(B) Whoever violates division (D)(1) of section 2151.313 of the Revised Code is guilty of a minor misdemeanor.
(C) Whoever violates division (A)(1) of section 2151.421 of the Revised Code shall be punished as follows:
(1) Except as otherwise provided in division (C)(2) of this section, the offender is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.
(2) The offender is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree if the child who is the subject of the required report that the offender fails to make suffers or faces the threat of suffering the physical or mental wound, injury, disability, or condition that would be the basis of the required report when the child is under the direct care or supervision of the offender who is then acting in the offender's official or professional capacity or when the child is under the direct care or supervision of another person over whom the offender while acting in the offender's official or professional capacity has supervisory control.
Last updated June 11, 2021 at 10:03 AM
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
27
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1959–2026 · leading case:
Campbell v. Burton, 92 Ohio St. 3d 336 (Ohio 2001).
Campbell v. Burton, 92 Ohio St. 3d 336 (Ohio 2001).
· cites it 14× “421, through its penalty statute, R.C. 2151.99, expressly imposes liability, within the meaning of R.”
Campbell v. Burton, 2001 Ohio 206 (Ohio 2001).
· cites it 14× “421, through its penalty statute, R.C. 2151.99, expressly imposes liability, within the meaning of R.”
Roe v. Planned Parenthood Sw. Ohio Region, 2009 Ohio 2973 (Ohio 2009).
· cites it 4× “421 because punitive damages were not expressly provided for in R.C. 2151.99, and the amended sections are unconstitutional.”
State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publ'g Co. v. City of Akron, 104 Ohio St. 3d 399 (Ohio 2004).
· cites it 2× “{¶44} The reports made to SCCSB about the Sherman-Vaughn incident and to the Akron Police about the Corice Street rape by persons knowing about the child abuse in those cases were reports under R.”
State v. Clark, 2013 Ohio 4731 (Ohio 2013).
· cites it 2× “Further, a failure to report suspected child abuse is a criminal offense pursuant to R.C. 2151.99(C), and R.C. 2151.421(M) makes a mandated reporter “liable for compensatory and exemplary damages to the child who would have been the subject of the report that was not made.”
Cramer v. Auglaize Acres, 865 N.E.2d 9 (Ohio 2007).
“421(A)(1)(b) listed those persons required to report abuse or neglect, and R.C. 2151.99 provided that whoever violated R.”
Douglass v. Salem Cmty. Hosp., 794 N.E.2d 107 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003).
“R.C. 2151.99(A). R.C. 2151.421 sets forth a specific duty to report knowledge or suspicions of child abuse; thus, the failure to perform that duty is actionable and the plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that they fall within the class of individuals the statute was designed…”
Cruz v. English Nanny & Governess Sch. Inc., 2017 Ohio 4176 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
“2 A party that owes a mandatory duty to report child abuse and fails to do so, is subject to criminal prosecution and penalties under R.C. 2151.99, and in some cases, is subject to civil liability.”
State v. Gutierrez, 2011 Ohio 3126 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
“2d 1144 , citing R.C. 2151.99. The records of A.P.’s counseling sessions with her therapist are privileged.”
Johnson v. Johnson, 731 N.E.2d 1144 (Ohio Ct. App. 1999).
“R.C. 2151.99. The confidentiality of such records and reports is, however, not absolute.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.99(A) — 4 cases
Douglass v. Salem Cmty. Hosp., 794 N.E.2d 107 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003).
“R.C. 2151.99(A). R.C. 2151.421 sets forth a specific duty to report knowledge or suspicions of child abuse; thus, the failure to perform that duty is actionable and the plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that they fall within the class of individuals the statute was designed…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.99(C) — 1 case
State v. Clark, 2013 Ohio 4731 (Ohio 2013).
“Further, a failure to report suspected child abuse is a criminal offense pursuant to R.C. 2151.99(C), and R.C. 2151.421(M) makes a mandated reporter “liable for compensatory and exemplary damages to the child who would have been the subject of the report that was not made.”
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.