In re N.M.P. (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 1458

Minor N.M.P. was placed in shelter care in March 2015 and adjudicated dependent; temporary custody to Portage County JFS from April 24, 2015, until March 14, 2017.
The child was returned to the mother in March 2017, then returned to agency custody and re-adjudicated dependent on June 22, 2017.
The agency filed a motion for permanent custody on June 5, 2018; the juvenile court awarded permanent custody to the agency on July 25, 2018.
The Eleventh District affirmed and certified a conflict with the Sixth District’s decision in In re K.L. about the meaning of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d).
Certified question: whether an agency must show that the child was in temporary custody for 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period of continuous agency involvement (i.e., agency involved all 22 months) before filing for permanent custody.
Supreme Court majority held the statute requires only that the child have 12 or more months in temporary custody within a consecutive 22-month period (no requirement that the agency have been involved for the full 22 months); the agency still must prove best interest by clear and convincing evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Interpretation of R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) — what does “12 months of a consecutive 22-month period” mean?	Mother (N.H.): requires 22 consecutive months of agency involvement before permanent-custody motion may be filed.	Agency: statute requires only that the child have 12 months in temporary custody within a consecutive 22-month window; alternative ground (abandonment) also supported the judgment.	Court: The plain text requires 12+ months of temporary custody within a consecutive 22-month period; it does not require 22 months of continuous agency involvement.
Justiciability/advisory-opinion argument — should the Court dismiss because resolution won’t affect outcome (alternative abandonment ground)?	Mother: sought resolution of the certified conflict.	Agency: argued decision would be advisory because court of appeals also based its decision on abandonment.	Court: retained jurisdiction to resolve the certified conflict and answered the question; decline to dismiss as advisory.

In re C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163 (2004) (agencies must meet timing requirements before filing for permanent custody)
In re B.C., 141 Ohio St.3d 55 (2014) (Chapter 2151 procedural protections and purposes in child-welfare cases)
State v. Cupp, 156 Ohio St.3d 207 (2018) (court may resolve certified conflicts even where disposition might not affect party)
Dodd v. Croskey, 143 Ohio St.3d 293 (2015) (statutory interpretation: apply clear, unambiguous language as written)
Fortner v. Thomas, 22 Ohio St.2d 13 (1970) (courts should decide actual controversies between parties)
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) (standing/need for concrete adverseness in litigation)