Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

58 Ohio St. 2d 37

In re Burrell

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 25, 1979

Ohio Supreme Court · decided 1979-04-25

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“That impact cannot be simply inferred in general, but must be specifically demonstrated in a clear and convincing manner.”

quoted by 17 later decisions, including In Re T.R.H., 23569 (3-5-2008), In re N.J.

“[w]hose condition or environment is such as to warrant the state, in the interests of the child, in assuming the child's guardianship.”

quoted by 3 later decisions, including In the Matter of Hurst, Unpublished Decision (10-14-2003), In Re T.R.H., 23569 (3-5-2008)

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1979-04-25

How this case has been cited

Cited by 126 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably 98 Ohio App. 3d 337 - In Re Brown (1994), 70 Ohio App. 2d 117 - In Re Bibb (1980)

126 state decisions

440197919801990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1The issue here presented fundamentally involves the application of R. C. 2151.04, which reads as follows:

“As used in sections 2151.01 to 2151.54, inclusive, of the Revised Code, ‘dependent child’ includes any child:
“…
“(C) Whose condition or environment is such to warrant the state, in the interests of the child, in assuming his guardianship.”

¶2Generally, the evidence before the trial court showed no possible conditions or environmental elements adverse to the normal development .of these children other than that the mother was living with a man not her husband. There was no evidence at all as to any impact of this re*39lationship upon the younger child. As to the older child, there was some evidence that she was defensive when criticized and somewhat defiant and disturbed by the conduct of the mother’s previous husband, but there was nothing to show any nexus between the child’s reactions and the environmental situation described in the complaint.

¶3In the absence of evidence showing a detrimental impact upon the child óf the relationship, established as here existing, that relationship, as a part of the child’s environment, does not warrant the state in removing the child from parental custody in the best interest of that child. Here, the evidence is inadequate to establish , a present or potential detrimental impact under the standard set forth in B. C. 2151.35 of “clear and convincing evidence” that the child is a dependent child. The conduct of a parent is relevant under the terms of this specific section solely insofar as that parent’s conduct forms a part of the environment of this child. As a part of the child’s environment such conduct is only significant if it can be demonstrated to have an adverse impact upon the child sufficiently to warrant state intervention. That impact cannot be simply inferred in general, but must be specifically demonstrated in a clear and convincing manner. Here, such was hot the case.

¶4The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

¶5Judgment reversed.

Celebrezze, C. J., Herbert, Cole, P. Broww Sweeney, Potter and Whiteside, JJ., concur.Cole, J., of the Third Appellate District, sitting for W. Brown, J. .Potter, J., of the Sixth Appellate District, sitting for Locher, J.Whiteside,. J., of the Tehth Appéllate District, sitting for Holmes, J.
/58/ohiost2d/37 · .json · Public domain