In re D.V., 2022 Ohio 1024

HCJFS sought and the juvenile court granted permanent custody of siblings J.A. (age eight at hearing) and D.V. to the agency after a multi-year dependency case with repeated removals and reunification efforts.
Father had multiple arrests and domestic-violence allegations (many charges later dismissed); he lived with his mother (grandmother) where some incidents occurred.
The children spent periods in foster care; HCJFS prepared separate case plans; the GAL recommended permanent custody to HCJFS.
The magistrate recommended permanent custody; the juvenile court adopted that recommendation and expressly found the children’s wishes had not been expressed to the court.
Mother appealed, arguing the court failed to consider J.A.’s wishes under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(b); father appealed the termination of his rights to D.V., arguing insufficiency and manifest-weight defects.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the juvenile court complied with R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(b) by considering the child’s wishes	Mother: Court failed to consider J.A.’s wishes; statutory requirement not satisfied	HCJFS/GAL: J.A. was too young or GAL/mother’s testimony conveyed wishes	Held: Reversed as to mother and remanded — court failed to consider J.A.’s wishes and must address them on remand
Whether evidence supported termination of father’s rights to D.V. (best-interest factors: interactions/interrelationships and need for legally secure placement)	Father: Evidence insufficient and against manifest weight; father completed services	HCJFS: Record shows recurring domestic violence, father lacked protective capacity, children were removed again — supports legally secure placement with HCJFS	Held: Affirmed as to father — clear-and-convincing evidence supported termination; not against manifest weight
Whether mother preserved the objection about the child’s wishes for appeal	Mother: Timely objections and trial-court admission that it hadn’t considered wishes preserved issue	HCJFS/GAL: Mother waived the argument by not raising it earlier	Held: Preserved — objection to trial court’s own omission was timely and reviewable (not limited to plain error)

In re D.A., 113 Ohio St.3d 88 (2007) (parental custody is fundamental but may be terminated when in child’s best interest)
In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155 (1990) (parental rights are essential and paramount)
In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100 (1979) (statutory best-interest inquiry permits limitation of parental rights)
Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standards for reviewing sufficiency and manifest-weight of evidence)
In re K.H., 119 Ohio St.3d 538 (2008) (definition and application of clear-and-convincing evidence standard)
In re Williams, 101 Ohio St.3d 398 (2004) (criteria for appointing independent counsel for a child)