In re D.N., 2011 Ohio 4627

D.N. was born November 22, 1995 and removed from his parents in 2005, eventually placed in relatives' custody.
In 2007, the juvenile court adjudicated D.N. dependent and placed him in temporary custody of paternal cousins.
In 2008, D.N. was placed in temporary custody of Children Services; a reunification case plan was developed but parents failed to complete objectives and were incarcerated for drug offenses.
Children Services investigated relatives for placement; Brother was rejected due to two failed home studies, financial issues, law-enforcement involvement, and a positive drug screen.
In 2009, CS filed for permanent custody; guardian ad litem (also D.N.’s attorney) recommended granting the motion.
In 2010, a magistrate granted permanent custody to Children Services; after objections were filed, the trial court adopted the magistrate’s order and terminated parental rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether permanent custody to CS was proper	Father argues placement with relatives or other best interests warranted	Children Services contends statutory criteria and best interest support permanent custody	Supported by competent, credible evidence; no reversible error
Whether D.N. was deprived of right to independent counsel	Father asserts GAL conflict with counsel impaired D.N.’s counsel	No explicit conflict; dual appointment permitted if no conflict	No plain error; independent counsel not required under record

In re D.A., 113 Ohio St.3d 88 (Ohio 2007) (parental rights are fundamental; safeguards apply in permanent custody)
In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 2007) (R.C. 2151.414 and 2151.413 standards for permanent custody)
In re Williams, 101 Ohio St.3d 398 (Ohio 2004) (independent counsel considerations on case-by-case basis)
In re Emery, 2003-Ohio-2206 (Ohio 2003) (dual representation of GAL and counsel requires explicit appointment and no conflicts)