In re D.K., 2012 Ohio 2605

Five children, two fathers; mother Leslie G. has five children: C.S. (1999), C.S. (2000), C.S. (2002), C.K. (2005), D.K. (2008).
Agency placed five children in temporary custody after police drug investigation at the home; mother and father were arrested for drug offenses; children adjudicated dependent/neglected.
Agency sought permanent custody; trial court granted permanent custody to the agency after hearings.
Mother was convicted of child endangering under R.C. 2919.22(B)(6); court relied on E(6) to deny placement with either parent.
Court found no valid first-prong basis supporting permanent custody; error centered on misapplication of the statutory predicate for the conviction.
Judgment reversed; remanded for further proceedings consistent with correct first-prong analysis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether first prong finding supports permanent custody	D.K. argues first prong satisfied under E(6)	Agency contends E(6) applies to mother's conviction	No valid first-prong finding; reversal of judgment
Whether trial court erred by relying on potential typographical error	Mother argues reliance on E(6) was mis-stated as E(16) possible	Agency contends no error or correction warranted	Judgment vacated for lack of support on first prong; remand for proper analysis

In re William S., 75 Ohio St.3d 95 (1996) (clear best-interest/first-prong framework cited)
Ace Steel Baling Inc. v. Porterfield, 19 Ohio St.2d 137 (1969) (trial court fact-finding; appellate weighing not allowed)
In re E.T., 2005-Ohio-6087 (2005) (reminds appellate court not to reweigh evidence as fact-finder)
In re M.B., 2004-Ohio-597 (2004) (restricts appellate role in finding permanent custody at first prong)
Vought Indus. Inc. v. Tracy, 72 Ohio St.3d 261 (1995) (statutory construction guidance; apply clear language)
R.W. Sidley Inc. v. Limbach, 66 Ohio St.3d 256 (1993) (interpretation of statutes; lay vocabulary not alter text)