In re T.J.

Temporary custody; final order; erroneous grant of custody under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d); permanent custody; best interests of child; Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services ("CCDCFS"); R.C. 2151.414; clear and convincing evidence; manifest weight; sufficiency of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. The juvenile court's order for temporary custody is a final appealable order that should have been appealed 30 days from the date of the journal entry and is untimely. Here, the court erroneously granted permanent custody to CCDCFS on the basis set forth in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d). This error is harmless because CCDCFS did not rely on R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) in its motion for permanent custody. Rather, CCDCFS relied on the condition listed in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) exists and argued that one or more of the factors listed in R.C. 2151.414(E) apply to the parents of the child at issue. Consistent with CCDCFS's reliance on R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a), the juvenile court found under R.C. 2151.414(E) that "the child cannot be placed with one of the child's parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent," and the juvenile court found multiple factors under R.C. 2151.414(E) were met, including R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) and (E)(4). Sufficiency and manifest weight are distinct legal concepts, a finding that a judgment is supported by the manifest weight of the evidence necessarily includes a finding that sufficient evidence supports the judgment. Here, there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the juvenile court's determination that permanent custody to CCDCFS is in the children's best interest. Therefore, the court's decision to grant permanent custody is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Termination of parental rights permanent custody manifest weight of the evidence R.C. 2151.414 clear and convincing evidence best interest of the children abuse of discretion. The juvenile court's judgment granting permanent custody to the agency was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Further, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in finding that permanent custody was in the best interest of the children.