the agency how to fulfill its obligation when the means of fulfilling that obligation are within the agency’s discretion. In re Hamil (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 97, 104, 23 O.O.3d 151, 431 N.E.2d 317 (stating that “[t]he courts in making decisions must keep the problems with which they deal in perspective” and “[t]he division of power as granted by the Constitution to the three branches of government must be kept in mind at all times”). {¶ 22} While FCCS has a duty to provide for the care and placement of children in its custody or protective supervision, how FCCS carries out its statutory obligations is an administrative decision based upon the child’s needs and the budgetary confines within which the agency must operate. See In re Parker (1982), 7 Ohio App.3d 38, 7 OBR 41, 453 N.E.2d 1285 (<HOLDING>). To interpret R.C. 2152.19 as broadly as the
holding that because the department of revenue is subordinate to the board of tax review in the decision making process the department is not an adversely affected or aggrieved party having standing to petition for judicial review of the boards order reversing a decision of the department holding that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering temporary alimony that exceeded the husbands ability to pay holding that the trial court exceeded its power in ordering the department of mental retardation and developmental disabilities to provide daycare services when those services were being eliminated because of staff reductions because ordering the department to implement specific facilities and programs is beyond the judicial function and exceeds the power of the courts holding that the states department of social services and a county prosecutor were in privity and satisfied the identity of the party requirement holding section 10b of the mental health and developmental disabilities confidentiality act unconstitutional as an attempt by the legislature to usurp the power of the judiciary