{¶ 1} Ambеr C. (“Mother”) appeals from a judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, that terminated her parental rights to her two minor children and placed them in the permanent custody of Summit County Children Services Board (“CSB”). For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand for a new hearing.
{¶ 2} Mother is the natural mother of J.C., born February 18, 2006, and J.C., born February 8, 2007. The father of the children voluntarily relinquished his parentаl rights and is not a party to this appeal.
{¶ 3} On November 21, 2008, CSB filed complaints alleging that J.C. and J.C. were dependent children because Mother had allowed them to have contact with their father, in violаtion of a court order that they have no unsupervised contact with him. Prior domestic violence between Mother and the father was apparently the reason for the no-contact order. The children were removed from the home under an emergency order of temporary custody to CSB. On January 20, 2009, the trial court adjudicated the children dependent and later placed them in the temporary custody of CSB.
{¶ 4} On March 2, 2009, CSB moved for permanent custody of both children. The agency alleged, among other things, that the children had been in the temporary custody of CSB for more than 12 mоnths of a consecutive 22-month period and that permanent custody was in their best interests. The “12 of 22” period was premised, in large part, on time the children had spent in agency custody during a prior case, as they had spent less than two months in the temporary custody of the agency during this case. Following a hearing on the motion, the trial court found that the children had been in the temporary custоdy of CSB for more than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period and that permanent custody was in their best interests. Consequently, the trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights and placed the childrеn in the permanent custody of CSB. Mother appeals and raises one assignment of error.
EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE JUDGMENT
{¶ 5} Before a juvenile court can terminate parental rights and award to a proper moving agеncy permanent custody of a child, it must find clear and convincing evidence of both prongs of the permanent-custody test: (1) that the child is abandoned, orphaned, has been in the temporary сustody of the agency for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, or that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414(E); and (2) the grant of permanent custody to the agency is in the best interest of the child, based on an analysis under R.C. 2151.414(D). See R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) and 2151.414(B)(2); see also In re William S. (1996),
{¶ 6} The trial court found that the permanent-custody test was satisfied because the children had been in the temporary custody of CSB for more than 12
{¶ 7} Mother contends that the trial court’s permanent-custody decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence. This court will focus its review on an issue that Mother has not explicitly argued, but which is implicit in her challenge to the evidence supporting the judgment. Although this court is not obligated to address issues not explicitly raised by the parties, it maintains the discretion to do so. C. Miller Chevrolet, Inc. v. Willoughby Hills (1974),
{¶ 8} In In re C.W., 9th Dist. Nos. 21809 and 21811,
{¶ 9} This court reviewed the In re C.W. appeal shortly after it decided In re EG., 9th Dist. Nos. 03CA0066, 03CA0067, and 03CA0068,
{¶ 10} A review of the record in this case likewise reveals a prejudicial legal error in the trial court’s “12 of 22” finding that, although not specifically raised by the аppellant, is implicitly raised by her challenge to the evidence supporting the
{¶ 11} During the current dependency case, J.C. and J.C. had been in the temporary custody of CSB for only one month and 10 days at the time CSB filed its motion for permanent custody. Because the children had also bеen placed in the temporary custody of CSB during a prior case, CSB attempted to prove the remainder of the “12 of 22” time period by presenting select journal entries from the prior case.
{¶ 12} The journal entries submitted by CSB from the prior case established that both children were in CSB temporary custody from April 30, 2007, until either March 7, 2008, or May 6, 2008. As the trial court explicitly noted in its judgment entry, the journal entries рresented by CSB included conflicting dates as to when' the children were returned to Mother’s custody in the prior case. This two-month disparity was critical to the trial court’s “12 of 22” calculation in this case. If March 7 was the correct date, the children had been in CSB temporary custody for only a total of 11 months and 17 days at the time CSB filed its motion for permanent custody, not the requisite 12-month period.
{¶ 13} To resоlve the conflict in the evidence, the trial court went beyond the evidence in the record and sua sponte took judicial notice of “its own docket, entries and files” and determined that the сhildren had actually been returned to Mother’s custody on May 6, 2008. Consequently, it found that the children had been in the temporary custody of CSB for a total of 13 months and eight days of a consecutive 22-month pеriod when the agency filed its motion. Therefore, it found that CSB had established the requisite “12 of 22” prong of the permanent-custody test. The trial court’s “12 of 22” finding is not supported by the evidence in the record, hоwever, because the trial court relied upon information that was not a part of the record and hence could not be relied upon as evidence in support of the “12 of 22” prong. Wе thus conclude that the court committed reversible error by considering matters outside the record when it undertook its examination of whether there was clear and convincing evidence that thе children had been in the custody of CSB for the requisite 12-month period.
{¶ 14} The record on appeal does not include any of the clarifying information that the trial court apparently was able to glean from the prior case file and other materials it relied upon in making its “12 of 22” determination. This court has stated, “ ‘Trial courts will not take judicial notice of their own proceedings in other cаses, even though between the same parties and even though the same judge presided.’ ” See, e.g., Patel v. Gadd, 9th Dist No. 21604,
{¶ 15} The rationale for this rule is that an аppellate court cannot review the propriety of the trial court’s reliance on such prior proceedings when that record is not before the appellate court. NorthPoint Properties, Inc. v. Petticord,
{¶ 16} Moreover, this court has repeatedly emphasized the obligatiоn of the children services agency to establish both prongs of the permanent-custody test by clear and convincing evidence. We have been exacting on this point in part out of the reсognition of the gravity associated with the permanent termination of parental rights. See In re Hoffman,
CONCLUSION
{¶ 17} Mother’s assignment of error is sustained. The judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is reversed, and the cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Notes
. This standard later became the law of the state when the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed In re C.W.,