Appellant’s two children were removed from their mother and placed with a paternal aunt and uncle in California rather than with their father in Ohio. The court based its decision, in part, on the minors’ very strong bond to their siblings, who would be staying in California. The appellate court affirmed the order. A court is authorized to consider the sibling relationships as a factor when determining detriment for purposes of its placement decisions. Appellant’s due process rights were not violated because the trial court chose sibling bonds over parental ones. The trial court properly held that it was in the best interests of the children to reunify with their mother in California. The record supported a conclusion that it would be devastating to the two minors to be moved to Ohio away from their siblings and their mother, and therefore substantial evidence supported the court’s finding that it would be detrimental to place the children with appellant.