In re C.W.

Because there was clear and convincing evidence to support the juvenile court's findings under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1), (2), (4) and (10), the court's determination that the children could not, or should not, be placed with the mother or father within a reasonable time was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS HARASSMENT – INDUCING PANIC – EVIDENCE: The juvenile court erred in finding the juvenile delinquent of telecommunications harassment where the state failed to prove that the juvenile's purpose in making the telecommunication was to abuse, threaten, or harass, and where the state failed to prove the existence of another person as a recipient of the telecommunication. Where a delinquency adjudication for telecommunications harassment served as the only predicate offense for a charge of inducing panic, and the telecommunications harassment adjudication is reversed on appeal, the adjudication for inducing panic must also be reversed, because a predicate offense is an essential element of inducing panic.

<bold>1. Termination of Parental Rights — neglect — incarcerated father —</bold> <bold>findings not supported by evidence</bold> <block_quote> The trial court erred by terminating the parental rights of a father on the ground of neglect where there was undisputed evidence that he was consistent in writing to the children, although he was on probation and then incarcerated, and respondent married the mother, which legitimated the child born out of wedlock. Significant portions of the court's findings were wholly unsupported by the evidence presented during the termination proceeding.</block_quote> <bold>2. Termination of Parental Rights — lack of progress — incarcerated</bold> <bold>father — findings not sufficient</bold> <block_quote> The trial court's findings in a termination of parental rights proceeding were not sufficient to support the conclusion that<page_number>Page 215</page_number> respondent had left the children in foster care for more than twelve months without making progress. The trial court failed to make any findings of fact specifically related to respondent's progress after the children were removed from the home.</block_quote> <bold>3. Termination of Parental Rights — abandonment — not alleged in</bold> <bold>petition</bold> <block_quote> The trial court erred by terminating parental rights based on abandonment where DSS did not allege abandonment in the petition. Respondent did not have notice that abandonment would be at issue.</block_quote>