In re J.L.
Citations
- 2022 Ohio 2885
Syllabus
TEMPORARY CUSTODY – CHILDREN – DUE PROCESS – R.C. 2151.419 – R.C. 2151.353 – JUV.R. 40: The juvenile court did not deprive parents of their fundamental right to raise their children when it granted temporary custody to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services (\HCJFS\) and the record included some evidence that this disposition furthered the welfare of the children. The juvenile court did not err by finding that HCJFS made reasonable efforts towards reunification where HCJFS's case plans intended to address the concerns that justified removal of the children from the parents' custody. The juvenile court did not violate Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(d) when it refused to hear evidence of communications that occurred between counsel that arose between the filing of the objections to the magistrate's decision and the hearing on those objections.
Judges: Bergeron
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Troxel v. GranvilleSupreme Court· 2000-06-05· cited 6,943×
- In re C.F.Ohio Supreme Court· 2007-03-28· cited 583×
- Harrold v. CollierOhio Supreme Court· 2005-10-10· cited 197×
- In re L.C.Ohio Court of Appeals· 2011-04-29· cited 43×
- Maddox v. MaddoxOhio Court of Appeals· 2016-05-11· cited 13×
- In re K.S.Ohio Court of Appeals· 2020-12-23· cited 5×
- In re M.M.Ohio Court of Appeals· 2018-05-25· cited 3×
- In re M. ChildrenOhio Court of Appeals· 2022-03-09· cited 2×
- In re S.P.Ohio Court of Appeals· 2022-05-18· cited 1×
- In re V.D.Ohio Court of Appeals· 2022-06-03· cited 1×
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.