In re C.W.
{¶ 2} The trial court held an adjudicatory hearing on July 17, 2002. At that hearing, the parties informed the court of their agreement that C.W. be adjudicated a dependent child and that the allegations of neglect be dismissed. On July 19, 2002, the trial court adjudicated C.W. a dependent child, dismissed the allegations of neglect, and ordered that C.W. remain in the temporary custody of appellant.
{¶ 3} On April 23, 2003, nine months after the dependency adjudication, appellant moved for permanent custody of C.W., alleging that permanent custody was in C.W.’s best interest, that C.W. had been in the temporary custody of appellant for 12 of the prior 22 months, and that C.W. could not be placed with his parents within a reasonable period of time.
{¶ 4} On October 14, 2003, the trial court granted appellant’s motion for permanent custody and terminated appellees’ parental rights. The trial court determined that C.W. had been in the temporary custody of appellant for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period pursuant to
{¶ 5} The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s order granting permanent custody to appellant and remanded the cause for further proceedings. Specifically, the court of appeals found that the trial court had erred in terminating appellees’ parental rights, since the court had based its judgment on the erroneous conclusion that C.W. had been in the temporary custody of appellant for 12 or more months pursuant to
{¶ 6} The court of appeals found its judgment to be in conflict with the judgment of the Fourth District Court of Appeals in In re Dyal (Aug. 9, 2001),
{¶ 7} Statutes concerning the same subject matter must be construed in pari materia. In re Hayes (1997),
{¶ 8}
{¶ 9}
{¶ 10} “(a) The child is not abandoned or orphaned or has not been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period ending on or after March 18, 1999, and the child cannot be placed with either of the child’s parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the child’s parents.
{¶ 11} “(b) The child is abandoned.
{¶ 12} “(c) The child is orphaned, and there are no relatives of the child who are able to take permanent custody.
{¶ 14} “For the purposes of division (B)(1) of this section, a child shall be considered to have entered the temporary custody of an agency on the earlier of the date the child is adjudicated pursuant to section 2151.28 of the Revised Code or the date that is sixty days after removal of the child from home.”
{¶ 15} In interpreting the statutory provisions concerning the juvenile court, we must carry out the purposes set forth in
{¶ 16} “The sections in Chapter 2151. of the Revised Code * * * shall be liberally interpreted and construed so as to effectuate the following purposes:
{¶ 17} “(A) To provide for the care, protection, and mental and physical development of children subject to Chapter 2151. of the Revised Code, whenever possible, in a family environment, separating the child from the child’s parents only when necessary for the child’s welfare or in the interests of public safety;
{¶ 18} “(B) To provide judicial procedures through which Chapter 2151. and 2152. of the Revised Code are executed and enforced, and in -which the parties are assured of a fair hearing, and their constitutional and other legal rights are recognized and enforced.”
{¶ 19} Our inquiry centers around a determination whether a trial court may count the time between the filing of a motion for permanent custody and the time of the permanent-custody hearing to satisfy the requisite 12-month period of temporary custody set forth in
{¶ 20} Prior to the H.B. 484 amendments,
{¶ 21} Also, prior to H.B. 484’s amendments, when a child was not abandoned or orphaned, an agency seeking permanent custody was required to establish (1) that permanent custody was in the child’s best interests and (2) that the child
{¶ 22} The “12 of 22” provisions set forth in
{¶ 23} Parents have a basic civil right to raise their children. In re Hayes,
{¶ 24} Furthermore,
{¶ 25} In the conflict case, In re Dyal, 4th Dist. No. 01CA12,
{¶ 26} Accordingly, we hold that before a public children-services agency or private child-placing agency can move for permanent custody of a child on
{¶ 27} Finally, we note that our holding does not preclude an agency from moving for permanent custody before a child has been in the agency’s temporary custody for at least 12 months. If a ground other than
{¶ 28} For all the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Summit County Court of Appeals on the issue certified for our review.
Judgment affirmed.