In re X.S.R.S.
Citations
- 2024 Ohio 1636
Syllabus
The juvenile court did not err in granting permanent custody of the children to the children services agency where the children had been in the temporary custody of the agency for more than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period and the grant of permanent custody to the agency was in the children's best interest. The overwhelming weight of the evidence was that Mother had failed continuously and repeatedly to remedy the conditions that caused the children to be removed from the home.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “[the defendant] has not cited any case, and our research has revealed none, where a party was permitted unilaterally to amend a contract midway through litigation concerning that contract”
- “The law of the case doctrine requires a district court to 24 follow the appellate court's resolution of an issue of law in all subsequent proceedings in the same case.”
- employer argued amendment to ADR policy provided reasonable notice to former employees
- “The doctrine does not apply to issues not addressed by the appellate court.”
- employer argued amendment to ADR policy provided reasonable notice to former employees
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Piper
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.