revealed none. In case we were left with any doubt, the administrative rules that govern CSD specifically provide that relatives have no right to the adoption of children in CSD custody unless they have established a “parent-chil 2d 617, 620-21 (1981) (refusing to create any common law right to the custody or adoption of one’s grandchildren). In fact, the Oregon courts have gone so far as to hold that even a custodial grandparent lacks a protected interest in the adoption of her grandchildren. Graham, 591 P.2d at 377-78 (considering appeal by grandmother who had temporary custody of children for 14 months prior the filing of the adoption petition); see also Browder v. Harmeyer, 453 N.E.2d 301, 308-09 (Ind.Ct.App.1983) (similar); but cf. In re P.C., 842 P.2d 364, 367 (Ok.Ct.App.1992) (<HOLDING>). We have, in short, found no statutory,
holding that a grandmother who frequently babysat her granddaughter was not in loco parentis and thus lacked standing to seek custody of her granddaughter holding that grandmother who had intermittent custody of her grandchild had no protected liberty interest in the continued custody of the child holding that grandmother in loco parentis of her three grandchildren had protected liberty interest in their future care and custody holding that party standing in loco parentis has standing to seek custody of child recognizing parents fundamental liberty interest in the care custody and management of their children