# In Re Howard

> Ohio Court of Appeals · April 16, 1997 · 119 Ohio App. 3d 201

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3705859

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re Howard.
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** April 16, 1997
- **Citations:** 119 Ohio App. 3d 201; 695 N.E.2d 1
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Hildebrandt
- **Judges:** Bettman, Painter, Hildebrandt
- **Cited by:** 36 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3705859

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that a conflict exists when the parent "clearly ha[s] her own agenda, or [is] advocating her own best interest"

## Opinion text

Hildebrandt, Judge,
concurring in judgment only.
I concur with my colleagues in the analyses and dispositions of the first three assignments of error. While I concur in the disposition of appellant’s fourth assignment of error, I believe that the juvenile court must have flexibility in addressing the needs of the children who appear before it on a case-by-case basis.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3705859. Public record. Not legal advice.