In re D.D.

[Cite as In re D.D., 2026-Ohio-1973.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA IN RE D.D., ET AL. : : Nos. 115605 and 115622 Minor Children : : [Appeals by T.C., Mother, and T.H., : Grandmother/Former Legal Custodian] : JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION JUDGMENT: DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 28, 2026 Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Division Case Nos. AD23903469, AD23903470, AD23903471, AD23903472, and AD23903473 Appearances: Wargo Law, LLC and Leslie Wargo, for appellant T.C. Rosel C. Hurley, III, for appellant T.H. Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Joseph C. Young, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee CCDCFS. EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J.: In this consolidated appeal, appellant-mother T.C. (“Mother”) and appellant-maternal grandmother and former legal custodian T.H. (“Grandmother”) appeal from the judgment of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division (the “juvenile court”), that terminated Mother’s parental rights, terminated Grandmother’s legal custody rights, and granted permanent custody of five of Mother’s children to appellee Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services (“CCDCFS” or “the agency”). For the reasons that follow, we dismiss Grandmother’s appeal (Appeal No. 115622) for lack of standing and affirm the juvenile court. I. Factual Background and Procedural History This case involves five children, D.D. (date of birth August 14, 2010), Sa.D. (date of birth September 23, 2011), St.D. (date of birth September 22, 2012), J.D. (date of birth October 23, 2019), and K.D. (date of birth January 8, 2021). S.D. (“Father”) is the father of the five children.1 The three oldest children, D.D., Sa.D., and St.D., were removed from Mother’s care in 2013 and were placed in the legal custody of Grandmother in 2015. In 2018, Mother and Father had their parental rights terminated with respect to two other children, who were placed in the permanent custody of CCDCFS. In or around January 2023, CCDCFS again became involved with the family, following a physical altercation between Mother and D.D. Because Grandmother had difficulty obtaining housing for herself and the older children, she and the older children had moved in with Mother and Father (and the 1 Because Father stipulated to the granting of permanent custody to the agency and has not appealed the juvenile’s court’s judgment, we limit our discussion of the facts, evidence, and findings to those that pertain primarily to Mother and Grandmother. two youngest children).2 After Grandmother and the children moved into the parents’ home, there was significant conflict between Mother and the older children. At that time, there were also concerns of educational neglect (i.e., the three oldest children had not been consistently attending school), behavioral issues involving the two oldest children (e.g., talking back and not listening that resulted in physical confrontations) that the parents and Grandmother had difficulty managing, inappropriate discipline of the older children by Mother (e.g., allegedly slapping D.D. in the face and throwing a tote and broom at her), poor housing conditions (e.g., bed bugs, roaches, trash, and clutter) that precluded the family from receiving in-home counseling services, and housing instability for Grandmother. In January 2023, Sa.D. had been hospitalized for a week for suicidal ideations. At that time, the three oldest children had been referred for individual counseling and the family had been referred for family counseling. On March 20, 2023, CCDCFS filed a complaint alleging that the children were neglected (D.D., Sa.D., and St.D.) or dependent (J.D. and K.D.) and requesting an order of temporary custody, along with a motion for predispositional temporary custody. With respect to the three oldest children, the complaint alleged that (1) Grandmother had failed to ensure that the children were regularly attending school and, as a result, the children were failing classes and missing in-school 2 Before Grandmother moved in with Mother and Father, some or all of the children in Grandmother’s custody were, at times, living with Grandmother or were split up, living with different family members. counseling sessions; (2) Grandmother struggled to maintain stable, appropriate housing for the children; (3) the children had “behavioral issues” that the adults did not appropriately address; (4) the adults failed to ensure that the children participated in counseling services to address their behaviors; (5) Mother “regularly engage[d] in verbal altercations” with the older children; and (6) Grandmother had “failed to prevent the continued occurrence of conflict in the home.”3 With respect to the two youngest children, the complaint alleged that they had “been exposed to violence in the home” related to the adults’ “inability to appropriately interact” with the older children or “appropriately address their behaviors.” The complaint also referenced the prior adjudication of D.D., Sa.D., and St.D. as dependent and the prior termination of Mother’s parental rights with respect to two other children. Following a hearing held on July 12, 2023, the children were placed in agency custody. The children remained in the uninterrupted custody of the agency since that time. 3 At the adjudication and disposition hearings held in July 2023, CCDCFS case worker Chaquelya Patterson testified that, at the time the agency filed its complaint in March 2023, D.D. had missed 58 days of school, Sa.D. had missed 77 days of school, and St.D. had missed 68 days of school. She indicated that the reasons for the lack of school attendance included “[o]ngoing transportation issues. There are times when they didn’t have money to get the kids to school, or there’s been also times where one of the kids wouldn’t go to school, and then they weren’t able to take all of them to go back and forth. There’s also times when they’ve been sick.” She stated that the school had “provided support to the family” by “offer[ing] them gas cards to school” and that she had spoken with the family about possibly transferring the children to a school that was closer to their residence to make it easier to get the children back and forth to school. She stated that Sa.D. was transferred to an online school program when she did not want to go to school but that she still would attend the online program only two or three days per week. Patterson testified that there was no claim that Grandmother had engaged in physical altercations with, or inappropriate discipline of, any of the children.  On August 3, 2023, the juvenile court adjudicated D.D., Sa.D., and St.D. neglected and J.D. and K.D. dependent and committed the children to the temporary custody of the agency. The juvenile court approved a case plan that required the parents and Grandmother to complete an approved parenting program, for the family to engage in family counseling to address the conflict in the home with the older children, for Grandmother to ensure that the older children were prepared for and attended school every day, and for Grandmother to establish and maintain safe, stable, and appropriate housing for herself and the older children. Case-plan services for the three oldest children included individual and family counseling. The permanency plan was reunification of the three oldest children with Grandmother and reunification of the two youngest children with Mother. Following a hearing before the magistrate (and with the agreement of Mother and Grandmother), temporary custody was extended in April 2024. The juvenile court found that Mother and Grandmother had made some progress on the case plan but that sufficient progress had not yet been made to alleviate the cause for the removal of the children from the home. Sometime in or around June 2024, Mother separated from Father and moved out of Father’s home. Accordingly, the case plan was amended to require Mother to obtain stable, safe, and appropriate housing. After separating from Father, Mother moved in with Grandmother.  In August 2024, the magistrate held a hearing to discuss, among other things, the agency’s proposed reduction in visitation to biweekly visits. The agency case worker, Chaquelya Patterson, indicated that the agency was requesting the reduction because it did not believe the children were benefiting from the visits. She explained: [D]uring the visits, the three oldest children . . . they use explicit words. They become very disrespectful to the parents and to the worker as well. And the parents, they do not respond in a way where they are redirecting the children. We have not seen what they were learning in their parenting classes apply to the visits. . . . Anytime I try to redirect the children or even just inform the mother or the grandmother what’s going on, I get ignored. And we had several meetings about this. And we had a meeting about this to talk to the family about it. . . . So we had meetings about the visits and the appropriateness of the visits and nothing still has changed from the family. She also noted that, despite her discussions with Mother and Grandmother about these issues, Mother and Grandmother continued to have inappropriate “adult conversations” with the children during visits that “don’t need to be had there” and that Grandmother had talked to the children “about things that become very emotional to the children.” The juvenile court rejected the agency’s proposed reduction of visitation, reasoning that it would not be in the children’s best interest given that they were seeing some benefit from the family counseling. However, the magistrate warned Mother and Grandmother that they risked the children being placed in permanent custody if they did not promptly make significant progress in resolving the issues with their parenting: I’m very concerned regarding the reports that I’ve received here today by the Agency and by the Guardian ad Litem regarding the lack of progress regarding parenting skills by the grandmother, mother . . . . [W]e’re a year and a half into this case, any issues regarding parenting skills should have been resolved long before right now. And it sounds like the Agency has services in place. There’s family counseling and there’s a glimmer of hope with that family counseling that is actually showing some benefit. . . . [Mother, Grandmother, and Father] you are the adults in this situation. You are the parents and grandparents of these children, the legal custodian of the three older children. It’s your responsibility and (inaudible) the Court’s expectation of you to appropriately parent these children. And if you don’t know what that means, then you need to work with Ms. Patterson, work with a parenting coach, work with family counselor. Because if we are a year and a half into this case, and Ms. Patterson and other professionals are still bringing these issues to your attention and they’re not being resolved, [t]hen the Court is going to start asking why they can’t be resolved and are they even capable of — are you capable of resolving that. We’re coming up on the year and a half mark and the Agency is gonna need to file a motion, that’s either gonna be a motion to return these children to you, from what I’m hearing right now, it doesn’t sound like we’re there. It’s going to be a motion to extend or it’s gonna be a motion to modify to permanent custody. So your behavior is going to help direct that decision. You start showing some improvements, then I would expect we’re looking at an extension. And if it stays the same or gets worse, I would expect the closer we get to that two year mark, we’re gonna be looking at a motion for permanent custody. On September 19, 2024, CCDCFS filed a motion to modify temporary custody to permanent custody. The agency argued that the children should be committed to the permanent custody of the agency because they had been in agency custody since July 2023, Mother’s parental rights had been previously terminated with respect to two other children, and Mother and Grandmother had “failed to benefit from case plan services” and lacked stable, safe, and appropriate housing. On December 19, 2024, Mother filed a “motion for legal custody to [M]other or relative,” requesting that she be granted legal custody of the children or, alternatively, that an unidentified “relative” be granted legal custody of the children. Mother indicated that the motion would be supplemented with a statement of understanding for legal custody, but no such statement was filed with respect to the “relative.” A. The Permanent-Custody Hearing On August 12, 2025, the juvenile court held an evidentiary hearing on the agency’s motion for permanent custody and Mother’s motion for legal custody. At the time of the hearing, D.D. was 14 (nearly 15), Sa.D. was 13, St.D. was 12, J.D. was 5, and K.D. was 4. The agency presented testimony from Patterson and Kayla Morales, extended case workers for CCDCFS. Mother presented testimony from Mary Beth Hooper, Mother’s therapist at OhioGuidestone. CCDCFS also introduced various exhibits, consisting primarily of copies of journal entries and case plans from these cases and others, which were admitted into evidence over Mother’s objection.4 A summary of the relevant evidence follows. 4 Although Mother’s counsel objected generally to the admission of CCDCFS’s exhibits “for various reasons,” including because “[w]e don’t think a lot of them are relevant,” he did not raise any specific objection or articulate any specific reason why any particular exhibit should not be admitted.  1. Testimony by CCDCFS Case Workers Patterson was the CCDCFS case worker assigned to the family from May 2023 to November 2024; Morales was the CCDCFS case worker assigned to the family beginning in November 2024. They testified regarding the family’s history with CCDCFS, the children’s custodial history in these cases, Mother and Grandmother’s compliance with case-plan services, and the extent to which Mother and Grandmother met case-plan objectives. Patterson testified that, when the agency became involved with the family in January 2023, following a physical altercation between Mother and D.D., a safety plan was put in place pursuant to which Father and Grandmother were to make sure that any interaction between Mother and D.D. did not escalate to a physical altercation. She indicated that while the safety plan was in place, additional concerns arose related to the “very deplorable” condition “inside the home” — i.e., “trash stacked on trash, clothes piled up, toys piled up everywhere . . . the sink . . . full of dishes, and . . . flies, bugs, all throughout the house” — the older children not attending school regularly, and emotional abuse, leading the agency to seek temporary custody of the children. Patterson stated that, at that time, the agency made referrals for Community Collaborative services, for family counseling, and for individual counseling for the older children, but that the family was not “consistently compliant” with services. With respect to the family’s prior involvement with the agency, Patterson explained that the three oldest children had been previously adjudicated in 2013 and that two of the parents’ other children had been previously committed to the permanent custody of the agency. In addition, Patterson stated that while three of Grandmother’s other grandchildren were in her care (when they were in the legal custody of another relative), these children became “[c]ourt involved” and were ultimately placed in the permanent custody of the agency.5 Patterson explained that the case-plan objectives for Mother involved parenting, family counseling, and housing and that the case-plan objectives for Grandmother involved parenting, family counseling, housing, and making sure that the children attended school daily and attended all medical appointments. Patterson explained that the purpose of family counseling was to facilitate communication between the adults and the children, i.e., to teach the adults “how to communicate with the children and . . . to use certain therapy tools, like how to redirect the children when the children do become disrespectful to them, or if they become frustrated in how the children [are] reacting to them.” Patterson testified that although the family had been engaged in family counseling through the National Youth Advocate Program (“NYAP”) from approximately May 2024 to October 2024, she did not see any indication that behaviors were improving and that she did not believe Mother or Grandmother had made significant progress on that element of their case plans. Patterson testified that family counseling was 5 No other testimony was presented as to when this occurred, the ages of the children, or the circumstances that led to the children becoming “[c]ourt involved” and placed in the permanent custody of CCDCFS. However, copies of the journal entries from these cases were included in the exhibits submitted by CCDCFS. discontinued in October 2024 because the therapist indicated “in her professional opinion that the family was not benefiting from family therapy.” Morales testified that when she was assigned to the case, she made an additional referral for family counseling through Choices Behavioral and that Mother, Grandmother, and the older children reengaged in family counseling in May 2025. She indicated that the gap in family-counseling services was because of difficulties in locating a provider and scheduling issues. Patterson testified that the family had two hours of supervised visitation each week and that visitation was initially held at Community Collaborative but was later moved to Mother and Grandmother’s home. Patterson stated that Mother and Grandmother were consistent with visitation. She explained that the visits were supervised because of Mother and Grandmother’s lack of parenting skills, “[t]he kids not looking at them as like a parental figure, the kids being disrespectful, [and] the parents not being able to redirect the children.” She indicated that during visits, sometimes the siblings “would get along and sometimes they wouldn’t.” She described the interactions between the adults and the children during visits as “very chaotic,” “not being able to communicate with each other,” and the children “cussing them out.” She indicated that the older children (in particular D.D. and Sa.D.) would be “bickering” and “getting into it,” “fighting amongst each other,” “their trauma . . . coming out during visits,” such that she would have to step in and advise the adults that the children need to be redirected. She stated that “the majority of the time, the parents would ignore it or dismiss what [the children were] saying, how they’re feeling” and that there had been “quite a few . . . emotional outbursts, emotional breakdowns from the children because they are feeling that their parents are not being supportive of what they are experiencing or how they’re feeling.” She indicated that the parents would often “reward the children with things” even though the children were not cooperating and were disrespectful to the parents and that the adults would also engage in “inappropriate conversations” with the children at visits, such as telling the children that their dog had died, causing the children to become “highly upset,” even though the parents were in therapy to learn how to properly relay information to the children. Morales offered a similar view of visitation. She testified there was “a lot of conflict” between the older girls during visitation, who would be cursing, “calling each other out,” and “disagreeing with . . . what the adults were telling them.” She stated that this would impact the younger children, who were observing the conflict, and that the younger children would sometimes repeat what their older siblings were saying. She indicated that Mother would, at times, seek to intervene to redirect the children but that her efforts were often unavailing. She stated that D.D. and Sa.D. would also attempt to interfere with Mother’s parenting of the younger children, acting as if they were the parents of the younger children rather than Mother, and that Mother was unable to successfully redirect them when this occurred. Morales testified that Mother was clearly bonded with J.D. and K.D. and, at times, also showed affection for the older children.  With respect to Grandmother, Patterson testified that although Grandmother had a bond with all three older children, she had an especially strong bond with St.D. and, during visitation, “would mainly be attentive” to him. Morales testified that Grandmother attempted to engage with all the older children during visits but that, at times, “it shows like she’s more engaged with [St.D.],” causing D.D. and Sa.D. to feel jealous, which “could cause conflict between them.” Patterson stated that Mother and Grandmother had each completed two parenting programs — a regular parenting program and a nurturing parenting program. Patterson testified that she had attempted to make arrangements for a parenting coach for supportive visitation but that, because of an issue with the agency’s contracts with the foster network — i.e., because the “foster agencies who ha[d] the children under them” did not offer parenting coaches — she was not able to put supportive visitation in place and “nothing ever came of it.” Both she and Morales acknowledged that Mother and Grandmother were willing to engage in recommended services. Patterson stated that although she received “positive” reports from providers regarding Mother and Grandmother’s participation in parenting classes, she did not believe that they had benefited from the parenting classes and, therefore, did not believe they had made significant progress on the parenting elements of their case plans. Patterson indicated that she had continuing concerns regarding whether Grandmother would be able to meet the children’s educational needs if they were reunified with her, including ensuring the children consistently attended school, completed their homework, and turned it in on time, based on Grandmother’s failure to attend St.D.’s individualized education program (“IEP”) meetings or “participate[] in some of the concerns that they may have had throughout the school year”; failure to ask the children, the foster parents, or the case worker about the children’s educational needs, goals, and progress; and failure to assist the children with their homework during visits without being prompted by the case worker to do so.6 Morales stated that, in her view, Mother’s and Grandmother’s behaviors were not “the types of things you would expect to see from people who have completed two parenting courses.” She indicated that Grandmother and Mother never discussed school with the children unless the children mentioned school and that if the children were returned to Mother or Grandmother, she did not believe their educational needs would be consistently met “[d]ue to the past history with the children not going to school.” Both Patterson and Morales testified that Mother and Grandmother were not at a point where they could recommend unsupervised or overnight visits with the children. Patterson testified that the agency made referrals to CMHA and Community Collaborative to assist Mother and Grandmother with housing and that they used the Community Collaborative referral to obtain housing. Patterson stated that when Mother moved in with Grandmother after separating from Father, this 6 Patterson acknowledged, however, that Grandmother had not been notified of the IEP meetings. posed a potential barrier to reunification because D.D. “did not want to live with mother,” “[s]he feared to live with mom, and she didn’t want to stay with the mom,” so Patterson explained to Mother that Mother needed to find housing independent from Grandmother. Patterson indicated that although Grandmother had been evicted from her home in September 2024, she and Mother found another home and had been living in that three-bedroom home continuously since November 2024. She stated that Mother’s 20-year-old disabled and “medically fragile” son was also living in the home; Grandmother was his legal guardian and received a social security disability payment as his caregiver. Patterson indicated that, in her view, neither Mother nor Grandmother had made significant progress on the housing case-plan objective because when she last saw the house in or around November 2024, they “still had, like, items or just things just stacked in different areas in the home,” “things stacked on top of each other . . . [e]verything, like, toys, clothes, books, just piles of things, just everywhere,” and did not have the necessary furnishings for all five children. Patterson stated, however, that she had not observed any rotten food, rodents, insects, or anything else that would present a health issue in the home. Patterson testified that utilities were on and there were no concerns regarding Mother or Grandmother’s ability to provide sufficient food for the children. Morales similarly described the condition of the home as “cluttered,” “like, bags of stuff, toys, clothes . . . on surfaces[,] on the floor, the couch, in the living room. So it’s like all over basically.” She stated that the home seemed to get “more cluttered” the longer she was on the case, but indicated that the home was not in such a state as to put the children at risk and that weekly visits had been held in the home since at least November 2024. With respect to the children’s placements, Patterson testified that the two oldest children, D.D. and Sa.D., had been placed in the same foster home; that they had “bond[ed] well” with their foster caregivers; that they respected, listened to, and communicated with their foster caregivers; and that they followed the rules of the household. She indicated that the children attended school regularly, that they completed their classwork and homework, and that they “did really good in school.” She stated that D.D. received individual counseling and that Sa.D. received individual and group counseling (both for “behavioral issues” and “to address the trauma”) and that their foster caregivers ensured that the children were consistently engaged in counseling services. Patterson testified that whereas Sa.D. had difficulties communicating with Mother and Grandmother regarding “certain things that she felt like she wanted to communicate,” when the foster parents communicated with Sa.D., “it’d be a whole different other story. Like, she didn’t have an issue. She didn’t have a problem.” Morales testified that when she observed D.D. and Sa.D. in their foster placement, “they’re always talking to each other normally, no disagreement,” that they did not exhibit the behaviors in the foster home that they showed at visits, and that the girls were “well adjusted” and had “no concerns,” “as if they’re different children between the ones in the foster home and at family visits.” According to Patterson, their caregivers had not expressed an interest in adopting D.D. or Sa.D. Patterson testified that the two youngest children, K.D. and J.D., had been placed in one foster home from July 2023 until January 2024 and were then placed together in a second foster home. She indicated that the children had “structure” and “stability” in the foster home and had “bonded very well” with their caregivers, who had expressed an interest in adopting them. Morales similarly testified that K.D. and J.D. were “bonded with” and “attached to” their foster caregivers. She indicated that because the children exhibited negative behaviors and were, at times, “defiant” after visitation, “play counseling” had been recommended for the children, which the agency was in the process of scheduling. St.D. had multiple placements while in temporary custody. Patterson testified that St.D. had initially been placed in a group home as a temporary placement, then in two foster homes, before being placed in Genacross, a residential group home in Toledo, in September or October 2024. Patterson and Morales indicated that Mother and Grandmother visited with St.D. regularly and that he continuously expressed a desire to return to Grandmother’s custody. Patterson testified that, while in counseling, St.D. disclosed to a therapist that he had been sexually abused by a male family member (no one involved in the case) and that his “trauma [had] started coming out” in the form of sexual sounds, sexual statements to peers at school, and sexualized behaviors that ultimately led to his being removed from foster placement and placed in Genacross for treatment.7 Morales described an incident involving a peer in school for which St.D. could have been criminally charged but the family of the peer declined to pursue the matter. Morales testified that St.D. had been diagnosed with ADHD and had an IEP, that he participated in individual counseling once or twice a week and group therapy five times a week, that his individual therapy incorporated specialized therapy to address his sexualized behaviors, and that he was prescribed medication with which he was compliant. Morales stated that it was unknown when St.D. would complete his treatment at Genacross. She indicated that there were still issues with St.D.’s behaviors, that he would be in need of therapy for the foreseeable future, and that she believed St.D. posed a risk to the safety and well-being of the other children and his disabled older brother if he were to return home. Morales stated that the therapeutic services Genacross provided to St.D. could be provided elsewhere if St.D. were to return home but that she did not believe St.D. would, in fact, receive necessary services if he returned home. Morales discussed the proposed sleeping arrangements if all five children were to return to the home and indicated that she did not believe there was adequate space or furnishings for all of the children. In particular, she noted that 7 Morales testified that this behavior included “humping furniture,” stealing and wearing peers’ clothing and undergarments, spending excessive amounts of time in his room or the bathroom, and “excessive masturbation.” Patterson testified that the abuse occurred while St.D. was in Grandmother’s custody. No evidence was presented as to the date, location, or circumstances of St.D.’s abuse or the identity of the perpetrator. Patterson testified that a police report had been filed but that no one had been charged with a criminal offense against St.D. the room proposed to be used by St.D. did not have a door, raising concerns regarding lack of privacy and St.D.’s tendency to expose others to his sexualized behaviors. Patterson testified that although the agency had attempted to identify other relatives or interested persons with whom to place the children, no one suitable had been identified. Patterson stated that, in her opinion, the agency should be granted permanent custody of all five children because “the kids have made progress being in a home where they are able to receive structure, discipline, stability. The kids were able to flourish . . . in these environments.” She further indicated that she did not believe Mother or Grandmother would be able to successfully enforce rules with the children and that that was something they would need to do to ensure that the children’s educational needs were met if the children returned home. Morales likewise stated that, in her view, granting permanent custody to the agency would be in the best interest of all five children. Morales testified that she had discussed the issue of reunification with both Mother and Grandmother and that neither had expressed a desire to have custody of all five children. She stated that Mother informed her that she wished to reunify with J.D. and K.D. and that Grandmother informed her that she wished to reunify with the three oldest children. 2. Mother’s Witness Hooper, Mother’s therapist, was Mother’s sole witness. Hooper provided brief testimony regarding her telehealth-counseling sessions with Mother. She stated that she began working with Mother in June 2025, that Mother “consistently” attended video-counseling sessions, that the sessions were “productive,” that Mother “showed progress” as they worked on “her treatment goal plan,” and that Mother was continuing to engage with treatment. Hooper indicated that she had never seen Mother interact with her children. 3. Recommendation of the Guardian Ad Litem The guardian ad litem recommended that the agency be granted permanent custody of all five children. She indicated that there were “a lot of moving parts” and she had “seriously considered” whether “the kids could be split up and different things could be arranged” for one or more of the children to return home, but that, ultimately, she did not think returning home would be in any of the children’s best interests “because of the continuing concerns all together that ha[d] been brought up to the Court’s attention.” The guardian ad litem reported that although she had not attended as many visits as the CCDCFS case workers, she did not witness the behaviors by the older children described by Patterson and Morales. The guardian ad litem stated that, in her view, although it was “chaotic with a bunch of kids,” they were “all acting age appropriate,” i.e., “that’s how it is when you have a family, a large family,” and that she did not have any “issues” or “ongoing concerns with that.” The guardian ad litem indicated that her “biggest concern” was “the safety and the sleeping of the children in the home.”  With respect to St.D., the guardian ad litem reported that Genacross is “a facility that helps children with behaviors where they can’t be placed anywhere else.” She noted that St.D. has stated that “he wants to return home to [G]randma and that he would like to go back as soon as possible,” but that, “[u]nfortunately, due to his behaviors,” that is not “an option.” She explained: “He’s got a serious case of ADHD. . . . He doesn’t want to listen. He doesn’t want to follow directions. He disconnects from reality. He, I mean, yes, he’s acting out sexually, but there’s so much more. . . . [H]e doesn’t want to go to school. And if he wasn’t forced, he wouldn’t.” She stated that St.D.’s providers “have not said that he can be released,” that he still needs inpatient treatment, and that she has concerns about the harm that could result from potential interactions between St.D. and other children and/or his disabled older brother if he were to return home. With respect to D.D. and Sa.D., the guardian ad litem reported that D.D. is happy in her placement, that all of the girls’ needs are being met, that the foster parents put a lot of structure in place and help the girls as much as possible, and that D.D. has indicated that she does not want to return home. The guardian ad litem reported that Sa.D. initially “had issues” in her placement, feeling as if there was “a lot of animosity toward her” because she identifies as “they” and “them” and “likes to dress as an animal,” but that those issues were addressed. The guardian ad litem indicated that Sa.D. was allegedly abused by the same person who abused St.D., that Sa.D. has “ongoing issues and concerns” and sometimes “acts out,” and that she is engaged in “specialized treatment for her behavior.” The guardian ad litem reported that Sa.D. had also expressed a desire to return home to Grandmother but that “the concerns that brought this case to the [c]ourt and the [a]gency,” “the sexual trauma that happened to her,” and “the interaction with her mom in the previous case” were continuing causes for concern and that the guardian ad litem did not believe it would be in Sa.D.’s best interest to return home, “just her.” The guardian ad litem acknowledged that “[Sa.D’s] older and she’s on a whole different path and plan than any of the other kids. So I mean, her situation’s different.” She indicated that if the court were inclined to return Sa.D. to Grandmother’s custody with protective supervision, “that would be something that I think would be okay for her,” but that she “would just be cautious” “in case any concerns happened again with schooling or acting out or conflict in the home” and to make sure Sa.D. continued to receive counseling. With respect to J.D. and K.D., the guardian ad litem reported that they were placed in a home with nine children and that they were “really happy” there and “really bonded” with their caregivers. The guardian ad litem stated that although they love Mother and want to see her, they also say they want to stay where they are and are too young to properly articulate their wishes. The guardian ad litem stated that, given Mother’s history and continuing concerns, she was not certain whether basic needs would be met “just having the two little ones return home to the home right now . . . just them and with mom.”  B. The Juvenile Court’s Decision On September 3 and 4, 2025, the juvenile court journalized judgment entries in each child’s case denying Mother’s motion for legal custody, granting the agency’s motion for permanent custody, terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights as to all five children, and terminating Grandmother’s legal custody of D.D., Sa.D., and St.D. Mother appealed (Appeal No. 115605), raising the following two assignments of error for review as to all five children: Assignment of Error No. 1: The trial court’s judgments granting permanent custody [to] the agency were not based upon sufficient clear and convincing evidence, were against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the findings of