12 of 22 in CSB Cases in Ohio

[Ohiogal]

State: Ohio

One of the grounds for rights to be terminated is if the child has spent 12 of 22 months in CSB's temporary custody. A case of first impression in the state was decided today that finds that counting is hard and it is not just saying 12 of 22 months -- there are factors in how it is counted and what counts towards that 12 of 22. When you do these cases, this case does matter.

In re A.W. (ohio.gov)

 

[Litigator22]

State: Ohio

One of the grounds for rights to be terminated is if the child has spent 12 of 22 months in CSB's temporary custody. A case of first impression in the state was decided today that finds that counting is hard and it is not just saying 12 of 22 months -- there are factors in how it is counted and what counts towards that 12 of 22. When you do these cases, this case does matter.

In re A.W. (ohio.gov)

 

[Ohiogal]

Do you have a comment .. or not?

 

[Litigator22]

The sole essence of your referenced Ninth District Court of Appeals decision (In the matter of A. W.) rests on this conclusion:

As a matter of law the period of time in which any state agency is exercising "ex parte emergency temporary custody" - as opposed to "temporary custody" - is not to be included in calculating the mentioned statutory "12 of 22 months of temporary custody" rule. (R. C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d)

Having found that the trial court erroneously applied a seven month period of time when the child was explicitly in but the CBS's "ex parte emergency care" - and thus coming up short of the required 12 months of "temporary custody'' - the appellate court sustained the mother's first and the grandmother sole assignment of error and reversed the trial court's order terminating the parent/child relationship.

With all due respect I'm at a loss to understand wherein you find any support for your puzzling analysis; e. g. , undefined "factors" and such seemingly inexpert expressions as "counting (I assume you mean calculating the respective periods) is hard", etc.

 

[Ohiogal]

The sole essence of your referenced Ninth District Court of Appeals decision (In the matter of A. W.) rests on this conclusion:

As a matter of law the period of time in which any state agency is exercising "ex parte emergency temporary custody" - as opposed to "temporary custody" - is not to be included in calculating the mentioned statutory "12 of 22 months of temporary custody" rule. (R. C. 2151.414 (B)(1)(d)

Having found that the trial court erroneously applied a seven month period of time when the child was explicitly in but the CBS's "ex parte emergency care" - and thus coming up short of the required 12 months of "temporary custody'' - the appellate court sustained the mother's first and the grandmother sole assignment of error and reversed the trial court's order terminating the parent/child relationship.

With all due respect I'm at a loss to understand wherein you find any support for your puzzling analysis; e. g. , undefined "factors" and such seemingly inexpert expressions as "counting (I assume you mean calculating the respective periods) is hard", etc.

You would be at a loss. But I can't give you a map to get your way out. Sorry.