in which a parent would not have the benefit of appealing a change in permanency plan prior to the initiation of a TPR proceeding. We recall father’s contention that permitting the Department to proceed with a TPR case without a change in permanency plan violates his due process rights. We disagree. Here, both FL § 5-525.1(a) and FL 5-525.1(b) contemplate independent action on the Department’s or child placement agency’s part on behalf of the best interests of the child. Neither statute requires a change in permanency plan as a condition precedent to the filing of a TPR. Furthermore, a parent’s right to appeal an interlocutory order changing the permanency plan to adoption must always be balanced against the best interests of the child. See Jayden G., 433 Md. at 72, 70 A.3d 276 (<HOLDING>). The best interests of the child is the
holding that it is well settled that there is no constitutional right to an appeal holding that there is no constitutional right to appeal a criminal conviction holding that the unavailability of appellate review of an order appointing a permanency guardian does not violate due process given the existence of additional procedural safeguards affording notice and an opportunity to be heard as well as the right to petition to terminate the guardianship and stating that there is no constitutional right to appeal in any event holding that the right to drive is not a fundamental right holding that although there is a right to appeal a change in permanency plan that right is not absolute and does not require the stay of a tpr proceeding