[Cite as In re V.R.R., 2023-Ohio-185.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

IN RE:

V.R.R.

:

:

:

:

:

:

CASE NO. CA2022-08-079

O P I N I O N

1/23/2023

APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

JUVENILE DIVISION

Case No. JN2019-0213

Garrett Law Offices, and Dawn S. Garrett, for appellant.

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and Willa Concannon, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.

Jeannine Barbeau, guardian ad litem.

PIPER, J.

{¶1} Appellant-Father appeals the decision of the Butler County Court of Common 

Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting permanent custody of his three-year-old daughter

"Verity"1to Butler County Department of Jobs and Family Services, Children Services 

1. For privacy and readability, we refer to the child using this pseudonym.
Butler CA2022-08-079

- 2 -

Division ("Agency"). For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the juvenile court.

I. Facts and Procedural History

{¶2} When Verity was born, in late April 2019, she tested positive for cocaine and 

marijuana. Both Mother and Father admitted using drugs. Around the same time, it was 

discovered that Father had disciplined Verity's 8-year-old half-sister (same mother) with a

belt and left extensive bruising on her back and buttocks. He was charged with child 

endangering and ultimately convicted of disorderly conduct. 

{¶3} The Agency quickly removed both girls and initially placed them with their 

maternal grandmother and step-grandfather. A couple months later, the girls were 

adjudicated abused and dependent children. In July, the Agency discovered substantiated 

allegations that the step-grandfather had sexually abused Mother when she was a child. 

The girls were then placed in the same foster home. Verity's sister had to be removed 

because of her serious psychiatric problems, and after cycling through foster homes, she

ended up in an institutional setting. Verity, though, stayed with the foster family and has 

been there ever since.

{¶4} A case plan was developed for the family with the goal of reunification, and a 

guardian ad litem ("GAL") was appointed for the children. Father and Mother were granted

highly supervised "level 1" visits at a visitation center with Verity and her sister. The juvenile 

court gave the Agency the authority to liberalize visitation, if appropriate, without seeking 

further court approval. But for quite a while this was simply not possible because of both 

parents' ongoing drug use. It was not until early 2021 that Mother stopped using and not 

until May 2021 that Father stopped using cocaine, though he continued to use marijuana 

until September. That same September, a visitation specialist at the center recommended 

liberalizing visitation one step to "level 2." The Agency had concerns and did not 

immediately follow the recommendation. But after Father filed a motion for less restrictive 
Butler CA2022-08-079

- 3 -

visits in early November, the Agency agreed to raise the visitation level. Father filed another 

motion for liberalized visitation late in December. The visitation specialist had not

recommended further liberalization, and the Agency refused to allow visits that were any 

less supervised.

{¶5} The Agency had moved for permanent custody of both children in November 

2020. In December 2021, a permanent custody hearing began before a magistrate. The 

hearing took several days and was spread over several months, ending in March 2022. 

{¶6} Among the witnesses were caseworker Jamie Shope, therapeutic services 

coordinator Kamyra Sweeten, and visitation specialist Lynel Anderson. Shope testified that 

Verity was very happy with her foster family. She noted that the sister had been hospitalized 

at least four times for suicidal or homicidal ideation and was in a locked-down, residential 

treatment facility. Shope and Sweeten were both very concerned about Father's and 

Mother's willingness to protect the girls from their step-grandfather, even with a court order 

prohibiting contact. Both parents, they said, were unconcerned and dismissed the stepgrandfather's abuse as something that happened a long time ago. Before the hearing, 

Father had never been opposed to the girls visiting their step-grandfather. And Mother was

still close to step-grandfather, having had him give her away at her wedding a month or so 

before the hearing. Shope testified that Mother had told her twice that step-grandfather had 

sexually abused her as a child, but later denied it or said that "it was 30 years ago and it 

didn't matter."

{¶7} Regarding Father's and Mother's visits with the girls, Shope, Sweeten, and 

Anderson all described them as very chaotic. Neither parent could properly care for the 

girls during the highly supervised two-hour visits, even with guidance from multiple 

professionals. Anderson testified that Father and Mother never really seemed to 

understand why their children were removed. Sweeten and Anderson had to explain to 
Butler CA2022-08-079

- 4 -

them "over and over again" why their visitation remained so closely supervised—that, for 

example, they would scream at each other while Verity's sister had temper tantrums; that 

Father was decidedly unreceptive to Sweeten's suggestions about how he could engage 

with the girls; that Father and Mother laughed at Verity's sister's speech impediment; that 

during visits the parents were unable to engage with the children; and that Father and 

Mother struggled even to change Verity's diaper and dress her. The visits improved a little 

about two years after removal, when the parents visited with Verity alone, after her sister 

was placed in a facility. But even then, the visits were rough, and Father and Mother still 

failed to understand Verity's developmental needs. The "level 2" visits still required staff 

supervision the entire time and often staff intervention. Even by the end of the permanentcustody hearing, no increase in visitation level had been recommended.

{¶8} Regarding the parents' home, during a visit a month before the hearing, 

Shope observed stairs that were dangerously steep for Verity which had no baby gate. The 

home was cluttered with debris in every room to the point that it was hard to find a path 

through—this despite Shope having had multiple conversations with the parents about 

cleaning up. Sweeten too observed that the home was cluttered and littered with dirty 

dishes.

{¶9} Verity's foster mother also testified. She said that Verity lived with her, her 

husband, and their four children, whom Verity called her brothers and sisters. The foster 

mother said that she and her husband "have every intention of adopting [Verity] if that's 

where things go." "[H]onestly," she continued, "I couldn't imagine her not a part of our family 

at this point."

{¶10} Father agreed that Verity was doing very well with her foster family. He 

testified that, just before the hearing, he and Mother had been married. Father admitted his 

drug use and his abuse of Verity's sister, which he attributed to the drugs and the stress in 
Butler CA2022-08-079

- 5 -

dealing with her psychological issues. Father said that he had been smoking marijuana for 

27 years and using cocaine daily for about four years. But he said that he had not used 

cocaine since May 2021 and had not used marijuana since September 2021. Regarding 

visitation, Father agreed that the caseworker and visitation specialist helped him prepare 

for visits and often assisted during visits. Even after taking parenting classes, Father said, 

he struggled during visits because he "couldn't get how they wanted, wanted us to work 

with a one year old and a nine year old." Father referred to the step-grandfather's abuse of 

Mother as "false rumors." He had no concerns about the grandparents babysitting the girls. 

Said Father: "I'm outside of the family. I don't know what happened thirty years ago so 

therefore why should I [care]."

{¶11} Mother testified that she wanted Verity and her sister to have contact with 

their grandparents. Mother said that she maintained a close relationship with both 

grandparents and did not believe that the step-grandfather presented any danger at all. 

She claimed that as a child she had lied about the step-grandfather's sexual abuse.

{¶12} Near the end of the hearing, the GAL submitted a written report. In it, she

stated that she had visited Verity in the foster home and agreed with the foster mother that 

she was a "happy, delightful child" who has "strong bonds" with foster family. The GAL 

noted that Verity had never lived with Father or Mother and had none of the serious issues 

that her sister had. Both parents had failed to remedy the reasons for the children's 

removal, noted the GAL, despite having had three years to do so. The GAL wrote that visits 

with the parents had rarely gone well and that they required "interventions by workers to 

keep the children safe." The GAL noted that Father had a longstanding drug habit and that 

he continued to test positive for cocaine and marijuana up until a few months before the 

hearing began. The GAL's visit to the parents' home at the time of the hearing revealed 

that it was "quite dirty, disorganized, and cluttered with trash and debris throughout. The 
Butler CA2022-08-079

- 6 -

floors and surfaces in all the rooms were covered." But perhaps the biggest concern that

the GAL had was the parents' failure to recognize the threat posed by the step-grandfather, 

and she worried that the children were at risk if they were returned to Father and Mother. It 

was the GAL's belief that returning the girls to the parents posed a "significant risk to their 

physical and mental health."

{¶13} The magistrate entered a decision in April 2022 recommending that the 

juvenile court terminate parental rights and grant the Agency permanent custody of Verity. 

The magistrate recommended just the opposite for Verity's sister, in a separate decision. It 

was undisputed, said the magistrate, that Verity was healthy, well-adjusted, and happy, and 

that she was thriving with her foster family. What stood out to the magistrate was Verity's 

relationship with her foster family—a relationship that was mostly formed when Mother and 

Father were unavailable to care for her because of their drug use. Verity had been with the 

foster family for around 18 months before Mother stopped using drugs and around 21 

months before Father stopped using. She had been out of Father's and Mother's care for 

her entire young life and had never really been with them outside the highly supervised 

visits. By then, said the magistrate, Verity had spent well over three-quarters of her nascent 

life with the foster family, and Father and Mother were just ready to begin the process of 

reunification. The magistrate found that Verity "consider[ed] her foster home to be her home 

and her foster family to be her family" and that she was fully incorporated into their home 

and into their family. And the foster parents wanted to make that incorporation permanent 

by adopting her.

{¶14} Both Father and Mother filed objections to the magistrate's decision. On 

August 22, 2022, after a hearing, the juvenile court overruled all their objections and

adopted the magistrate's decision.
Butler CA2022-08-079

- 7 -

{¶15} Father appealed.2

II. Analysis

{¶16} Father presents two assignments of error. Because the issues raised are 

closely related, we address them together.

{¶17} Assignment of Error No. 1:

{¶18} THE AGENCY FAILED TO MAKE REASONABLE EFFORTS BY DENYING 

LIBERALIZED VISITS WHICH DENIAL PRECLUDED PARENTS FROM PROGRESSING 

TO REUNIFICATION.

{¶19} Assignment of Error No. 2:

{¶20} THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION TO GRANT THE AGENCY PERMANENT 

CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE 

EVIDENCE AND NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.

{¶21} Father first alleges that the juvenile court erred by finding that the Agency 

made reasonable efforts to reunify the family. He contends that the Agency should have 

permitted liberalized visitation. Father next alleges that the juvenile court's decision was 

not supported by sufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

He again raises the issue of liberalized visitation and further contends that some of the best

interest factors weighed in favor of denying the Agency's motion.

{¶22} The right to parent one's children is a fundamental right. Troxel v. Granville, 

530 U.S. 57, 66, 120 S.Ct. 2054 (2000); In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46, 48 (1997). To 

protect this right, Ohio law requires that, before parental rights are terminated, the state 

must demonstrate that it has made reasonable efforts to reunify the family. In re C.F., 113 

Ohio St.3d 73, 2007-Ohio-1104, ¶ 43. In addition, the state is required to prove by clear 

2 Mother did not appeal. We note too that this appeal concerns only Verity.
Butler CA2022-08-079

- 8 -

and convincing evidence that the statutory standards for permanent custody have been 

satisfied. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 769, 102 S.Ct. 1388 (1982).

A. Reasonable Efforts to Reunify

{¶23} R.C. 2151.419 requires a juvenile court, before it terminates parental rights, 

to determine whether reasonable efforts have been made to reunify the family, which the 

children services agency has the burden of proving. R.C. 2151.419(A)(1). Father contends 

that the Agency failed to satisfy its duty to make reasonable efforts to reunite Verity with her 

family. He argues that a major reason for granting permanent custody to the Agency was 

the strength of Verity's bond with her foster family compared to her bond with him. 

Permitting more liberalized visits with her, says Father, would have strengthened her bond 

with him and facilitated reunification.

{¶24} As an initial matter, the juvenile court has made reasonable efforts 

determinations in these proceedings before. And if a court has previously made the

determination, it need not do so during the final permanent custody hearing. In re C.F. at ¶ 

43. The juvenile court here made a reasonable efforts determination at least twice before, 

at hearings on April 24, 2019, and December 23, 2020. Father did not object to either of 

those determinations. But because the possibility of more liberalized visits did not arise 

until a couple of months before the permanent custody hearing began, after the previous 

determinations, we construe Father's argument to be, in essence, that the Agency's 

subsequent denial of liberalized visits meant that it could no longer be said to have made 

reasonable efforts to reunify the family.

{¶25} "'Reasonable efforts' does not mean all available efforts. Otherwise, there 

would always be an argument that one more additional service, no matter how remote, may 

have made reunification possible." (Citation omitted.) In re K.L., 12th Dist. Clermont No.

CA2012-08-062, 2013-Ohio-12, ¶ 18. "In determining whether the agency made 
Butler CA2022-08-079

- 9 -

reasonable efforts * * *, the issue is not whether the agency could have done more, but 

whether it did enough to satisfy the reasonableness standard under the statute." (Citation

omitted.) Id.

{¶26} Here, Father began closely supervised base-level visits with Verity shortly 

after she was born. For quite a while the visits could not be liberalized because Father and 

Mother continued to use drugs. It was not until roughly two months before the final 

permanent custody hearing began that Father finally stopped using drugs, and it was then 

that liberalized visits were recommended. While the Agency did not immediately adopt this 

recommendation, it was not required to. The Agency did not liberalize visitation any further,

though, nor was further liberalization recommend, because, as the evidence showed, 

Father and Mother were struggling to provide basic care for the child.

{¶27} The magistrate was very clear in his decision that the visitation level did not 

play a major role (if any role at all) in the permanent custody decision. Regardless, 

liberalized visitation at the end of the permanent custody proceedings would not have 

materially changed the situation. The possibility of less supervision came at the end of a 

very long road. By that time, Verity had already been with her foster family for most of her 

life. As the magistrate said, liberalized visits at that late stage would not have made an 

appreciable difference to the strength of the bond between Father and Verity. And it would 

not have changed the strong bond that she had with her foster parents.

{¶28} Ultimately, it was Father's conduct that caused him to miss the opportunity to 

develop a bond with his daughter. He simply did not progress quickly enough to the point 

that he could have more independent visits with her.

B. The Child's Best Interest

{¶29} Father also challenges the juvenile court's decision to terminate his parental

rights and grant permanent custody to the Agency. He incorporates his argument from the 
Butler CA2022-08-079

- 10 -

first assignment of error, that the Agency failed to allow liberalized visits. Father also argues 

that granting permanent custody to the Agency was not necessary to attain a secure 

permanent placement for Verity because he and Mother have completed all their case plan 

services and remedied the conditions that caused her removal in the first place. In addition, 

Father points out that permanent custody of Verity's sister was denied during the same 

proceedings.

{¶30} R.C. 2151.414 governs a motion for permanent custody of a child and sets 

forth specific determinations that a juvenile court must make before granting it. In re C.F., 

113 Ohio St.3d 73, 2007-Ohio-1104, at ¶ 22. As relevant here, the court must determine, 

by clear and convincing evidence, first, that one or more of the conditions in R.C. 

2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (e) applies and, second, that a grant of permanent custody is in 

the child's best interest. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1). "Clear and convincing evidence" is evidence 

sufficient for the trier of fact to form a firm conviction or belief that the essential statutory 

elements for a termination of parental rights have been established. Cross v. Ledford, 161 

Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus.

{¶31} In this case, the juvenile court determined that the condition in R.C. 

2151.414(B)(1)(d) applied: Verity had been in the Agency's temporary custody for 12 or 

more months of a consecutive 22-month period. Father does not dispute this determination. 

His challenge is to the court's determination that granting the Agency permanent custody 

was in Verity's best interest.

{¶32} In determining a child's best interest, a court must consider "all relevant 

factors," including these five: the child's relationship with people like his or her parents, 

siblings, relatives, and foster parents; the child's wishes (if the child is of sufficient age and 

maturity); the child's custodial history; the child's need for a legally secure permanent 

placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of 
Butler CA2022-08-079

- 11 -

permanent custody to the agency; and whether any factor listed in R.C. 2151.414(E)(7) to 

(11) applies. R.C. 2151.414(D)(1). No one best interest factor inherently carries any 

"greater weight or heightened significance" than another. In re C.F. at ¶ 57.

{¶33} An appellate court's review of a permanent custody decision is generally 

limited to considering whether sufficient credible evidence exists to support the juvenile 

court's determination that clear and convincing evidence—evidence from which a firm 

conviction or belief can be formed—showed that permanent custody is in child's best 

interest. In re J.N.L.H., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2022-06-063, 2022-Ohio-3865, ¶ 22. But 

we have also said that a judgment may be reversed as against the manifest weight of the 

evidence if there is sufficient conflict in the evidence, that is, if after weighing the evidence 

and all reasonable inferences and considering the credibility of witnesses, we conclude that 

the juvenile court, in resolving the conflicts, clearly lost its way in finding that permanent 

custody is in the child's best interest. Id. Here, after reviewing the entire record, we 

conclude that sufficient credible evidence existed to support the juvenile court's 

determination that granting permanent custody to the Agency was in Verity's best interest. 

And there was no conflict in the evidence sufficient to suggest that the juvenile court's 

judgment was against the weight of the evidence.

{¶34} The magistrate (and it may be assumed, the juvenile court) considered and 

weighed all the relevant best interest factors. The magistrate did find that a legally secure 

permanent placement for Verity could possibly be achieved, someday, eventually, without 

granting permanent custody to the Agency. But the magistrate also found that three-yearold Verity had been living with her foster family for almost her whole life, and that she had 

come to see them as her family. She was thriving and happy with the foster family, and the 

family wanted to adopt her. Verity had never been with Father outside highly supervised 

visits, and she lacked any real bond with him. For her, then, reunification with Father would 
Butler CA2022-08-079

- 12 -

require removing her from the only home that she has ever known, taking her away from 

the people who have loved her and cared for her as long as she can remember, and giving

her to people who are all but strangers.

{¶35} Father's argument puts great stock in the fact that he completed his case plan 

services. But "a parent's successful completion of the terms of a case plan is not dispositive 

on the issue of reunification, as the case plan is simply a means to a goal, but not the goal 

itself." In re A.R., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-08-143, 2016-Ohio-4919, ¶ 18; see also In 

re N.L., 9th Dist. Summit No. 27784, 2015-Ohio-4165, ¶ 35 (stating that "substantial 

compliance with a case plan, in and of itself, does not establish that a grant of permanent 

custody to an agency is erroneous”). "[T]he key concern is not whether the parent has 

successfully completed the case plan, but whether the parent has substantially remedied

the concerns that caused the child's removal from the parent's custody." (Emphasis sic.) 

In re S.M., 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2015-01-003, 2015-Ohio-2318, ¶ 24. "Indeed, 

because the trial court's primary focus in a permanent custody proceeding is the child's best 

interest, 'it is entirely possible that a parent could complete all of his/her case plan goals 

and the trial court still appropriately terminate his/her parental rights.'" In re J.M., 4th Dist. 

Highland No. 21CA13, 2021-Ohio-4146, ¶ 60, quoting In re Gomer, 3d Dist. Wyandot Nos. 

16-03-19, 16-03-20, and 16-03-21, 2004-Ohio-1723, ¶ 36. Consequently, even if Father 

had completed his entire case plan, it would not necessarily mean that placing Verity in his 

custody would serve her best interest.

{¶36} There is evidence here that even toward the end of the proceedings, Father 

was unable to care for Verity on the most fundamental level. At supervised visits he 

struggled with such basic tasks as changing her diaper and dressing her, and he 

consistently failed to recognize her developmental needs. His apartment was filthy and

there were conditions that made it unsafe for a young child. Also, if Verity were placed with 
Butler CA2022-08-079

- 13 -

Father, she would return to living with Mother, whose fitness to care for the child was 

questioned by the magistrate. It was likely that Mother would be the primary caregiver while 

Father is working.

{¶37} Father also contends that the decision to deny permanent custody as to 

Verity's sister undermines the decision to grant permanent custody as to Verity. But the

situation of her sister is easily distinguished. Unlike Verity—who has never lived with Father 

or Mother, is healthy, and has been thriving with her foster family for nearly three years—

the sister had very serious mental health issues, had cycled through multiple foster homes, 

and was in an institutional lockdown setting at the time of the permanent custody hearing. 

Moreover, the sister was 11 years old, had lived with Mother for eight years, and had 

expressed a desire to return to Mother. In sum, the sister's circumstances are quite unlike 

Verity's.

{¶38} We recognize that "parents' interest in the care, custody, and control of their 

children 'is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by th[e United 

States Supreme] Court.'" In re B.C., 141 Ohio St.3d 55, 2014-Ohio-4558, ¶ 19, quoting 

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. at 65, 120 S.Ct. 2054. But "[t]he fundamental interest of 

parents is not absolute * * *. Once the case reaches the disposition phase, the best interest 

of the child controls." In re D.A., 113 Ohio St.3d 88, 2007-Ohio-1105, ¶ 11. '"[T]he natural 

rights of a parent * * * are always subject to the ultimate welfare of the child, which is the 

polestar or controlling principle to be observed.'" In re Cunningham, 59 Ohio St.2d 100, 

106 (1979), quoting In re R.J.C., 300 So.2d 54, 58 (Fla.App.1974). And a child's best 

interest is "served by being placed in a permanent situation that fosters growth, stability, 

and security." In re F.S., 12th Dist. Fayette Nos. CA2020-08-011 and CA2020-08-012, 

2021-Ohio-345, ¶ 69.

{¶39} In this case, Father's effort to rectify his past mistakes must be commended, 
Butler CA2022-08-079

- 14 -

and his love for his daughter is not doubted. But the focus must be on what is best for the 

child. The evidence supports the juvenile court's determination that what is best for Verity 

was granting permanent custody to the Agency. 

III. Conclusion

{¶40} The two assignments of error presented are overruled. The juvenile court's 

judgment is affirmed.

M. POWELL, P.J., and S. POWELL, J., concur.