Skip to main content

In re E.H.

Citations

  • 2026 Ohio 670

Syllabus

The trial court did not abuse its discretion or violate mother's due process rights when it held the permanent custody hearing concerning her child in her absence due to her incarceration. Nor did the court abuse its discretion or violate mother's due process rights when it denied her motion to continue the permanent custody hearing. The trial court did not abuse its discretion or violate mother's due process rights when it denied her motions for legal custody to a relative or a nonrelative because, among other reasons, neither proposed legal custodian signed a statement of understanding for legal custody that contained the statutorily required provisions of R.C. 2151.353(A)(3)(a) through (d).

Judges: Hanseman

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cites

29 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.