In re D.D.

Summary

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals reviewed a consolidated appeal involving the termination of a mother's parental rights, termination of a maternal grandmother's legal custody rights, and an award of permanent custody of five children to the Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services. The court dismissed the grandmother's appeal for lack of standing and affirmed the juvenile court's judgment as to the mother.

Holdings

1. A former nonparent legal custodian has standing to challenge termination of her own legal-custody rights, but Grandmother lacked standing to challenge the termination of Mother's parental rights because she was not aggrieved by that aspect of the judgment.
2. The juvenile court properly found a statutory predicate for permanent custody because the children had been in agency custody for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d).
3. Mother failed to meet her burden under R.C. 2151.414(E)(11) to prove by clear and convincing evidence that, notwithstanding the prior involuntary termination of her parental rights to two other children, she could provide a legally secure permanent placement and adequate care for the five children.
4. Because at least one R.C. 2151.414(E) factor was established by clear and convincing evidence as to Mother, the juvenile court was required to find that the children could not be placed with her within a reasonable time or should not be placed with her.
5. The juvenile court did not err in finding that CCDCFS made reasonable efforts to reunify Mother with the children.
6. Clear and convincing evidence supported the determination that permanent custody to CCDCFS was in the best interests of all five children, and the determination was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
7. The juvenile court was not required to find that termination was the only option or that every suitable relative placement was unavailable before granting permanent custody, and it did not err in denying Mother's legal-custody motion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Grandmother had standing to challenge the termination of Mother's parental rights and the agency's permanent-custody order.
2. Whether clear and convincing evidence supported the statutory basis for granting CCDCFS permanent custody.
3. Whether Mother rebutted the consequence of her prior involuntary parental-rights terminations under R.C. 2151.414(E)(11) by proving that she could provide a legally secure permanent placement and adequate care.
4. Whether the juvenile court's determination that permanent custody was in the children's best interests was supported by clear and convincing evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
5. Whether CCDCFS made reasonable efforts toward reunification.
6. Whether the juvenile court erred by denying Mother's motion for legal custody or by failing to select Mother or Grandmother as a less restrictive alternative to permanent custody.

Disposition

other