[Cite as In re B.T.H., 2017-Ohio-8358.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

BUTLER COUNTY 

IN THE MATTER OF: B.T.H. : 

 CASE NO. CA2017-06-080 

 : 

 O P I N I O N 

 : 10/30/2017 

 : 

APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

JUVENILE DIVISION 

Case No. JN2014-0278 

Amy R. Ashcraft, P.O. Box 172, Seven Mile, Ohio 45062, Guardian Ad Litem 

Debra R. Rothstein, 10 Journal Square, 3rd Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for B.T.H. 

Mark W. Raines, 246 High Street, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellant 

Carol A. Garner, 9435 Waterstone Boulevard, Suite 140, Cincinnati, Ohio 45249, Guardian 

Ad Litem for appellant 

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Michael Greer, Government 

Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for Butler County 

Children Services 

 M. POWELL, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, the biological mother of B.T.H. ("Mother"), appeals a decision of the 

Butler County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting permanent custody of 

B.T.H. to appellee, the Butler County Department of Job and Family Services ("JFS" or "the 

agency"). 
Butler CA2017-06-080 

 - 2 - 

{¶ 2} In July 2014, JFS filed a complaint alleging that B.T.H. was a neglected, 

abused, and dependent child. The complaint alleged that Mother was living with B.T.H., age 

10, in an unsanitary motel room. The complaint further alleged that Mother had mental 

health issues and an extensive history with the agency. Finally, the complaint alleged that 

Mother asked B.T.H. to "have sex" with a boy who was living at the motel. 

{¶ 3} JFS' complaint requested an ex parte emergency order granting temporary 

custody of B.T.H. to her aunt or to JFS. The juvenile court found probable cause to believe 

that B.T.H.'s removal was necessary to prevent immediate or threatened physical or 

emotional harm. Based on this finding, the court issued an ex parte emergency order, which 

placed B.T.H. in the temporary custody of the aunt. 

{¶ 4} In August 2014, JFS entered into a case plan with Mother with the goal of 

reunification. The case plan required Mother to complete a psychological evaluation to 

determine her mental health needs and follow any recommendations, comply with court 

orders, address her anger issues, follow through with her current mental health services, take 

her medications as prescribed, and secure stable housing and income. The case plan 

permitted Mother weekly supervised visits with B.T.H. 

{¶ 5} In September 2014, the juvenile court found that B.T.H. was an abused and 

dependent child and that Mother was the perpetrator of the abuse. The court noted that 

B.T.H.'s father, after proper service, failed to appear and was found in default. 

{¶ 6} In May 2015, B.T.H.'s aunt informed the agency that she could no longer 

maintain temporary custody of B.T.H. JFS then moved to transfer temporary custody to the 

agency. The court granted JFS' motion and the agency placed B.T.H. in foster care. 

{¶ 7} In March 2016, JFS moved for permanent custody. The motion alleged that 

B.T.H. could not be placed with her parents within a reasonable time and should not be 

placed with her parents and that a grant of permanent custody in favor of the agency was in 
Butler CA2017-06-080 

 - 3 - 

B.T.H.'s best interest. In July 2016, JFS filed a second motion for permanent custody with 

allegations identical in all pertinent respects to the allegations of the March 2016 motion. At 

a later hearing, the agency formally withdrew the March 2016 permanent custody motion. 

{¶ 8} The court held the permanent custody hearing over several days in November 

2016 and January 2017. In support of permanent custody, JFS introduced the testimony of 

Mother's JFS caseworker, who had been involved with the case since July 2014. 

{¶ 9} The caseworker testified that Mother had problems with taking her prescription 

medication. The caseworker testified that she checked Mother's prescriptions on three 

occasions and found that Mother was out of medication sooner than called for by the 

prescriptions. Yet Mother tested negative for her medication in drug screens. Mother always 

provided the caseworker with excuses for the loss of medication, including claiming that 

family members were stealing her prescriptions. The agency referred Mother to a substance 

abuse agency that would assist Mother with taking her medication and perform pill counts. 

{¶ 10} A counselor from the substance abuse agency testified that she began working 

with Mother in October 2015. The counselor provided Mother with scheduled in-home 

therapy sessions, which also involved pill counts. Mother's counselor stated that on several 

of these scheduled visits no one responded to the door. Mother offered various excuses as 

to her lack of response. When the counselor could complete pill counts, Mother's counts 

were sometimes substantially off. On one occasion, Mother was missing 40 Xanax pills only 

two days after receiving her prescription. The counselor also noted that Mother tested 

negative for her prescribed medication. Finally, the counselor said that Mother showed her a 

text message from a friend asking for Mother's medication. 

{¶ 11} The JFS caseworker testified that Mother lived with relatives until April 2015, 

when she obtained an apartment. The caseworker visited Mother's apartment and found it 

unsanitary. The caseworker observed food left out in the kitchen, garbage on the floor, and a 
Butler CA2017-06-080 

 - 4 - 

strong odor and dirty dishes on Mother's mattress. The caseworker never observed the 

apartment in an appropriate condition for a child. Mother's counselor similarly testified that 

Mother's apartment was "always dirty." 

{¶ 12} The agency also had concerns about Mother's personal associations. Mother 

admitted to the caseworker that her cousin had overdosed in the apartment and that others 

she allowed in the home were stealing her medication. The caseworker confirmed that 

Mother filed a police report concerning missing pills. While the permanent custody hearing 

was pending, Mother was in the process of being evicted from her apartment for failure to 

pay late payment fees. 

{¶ 13} The caseworker agreed that the agency's primary concern was Mother's mental 

health and that Mother had consistently utilized mental health services. However, Mother 

continued to exhibit disturbing behavior. Once, Mother contacted the agency and reported 

that B.T.H. severely injured herself in a bicycle accident, was hospitalized, and then 

disappeared from the hospital. In fact, B.T.H. was safe at school. Mother later contacted the 

agency and reported that she dreamed the incident. 

{¶ 14} A specialist at a family visitation center testified that Mother regularly visited 

with B.T.H. The specialist observed a bond between Mother and B.T.H. However, Mother's 

visits were supervised at the highest level of scrutiny throughout the case. The agency 

deemed this level of supervision necessary because the specialist had to re-direct Mother 

from discussing inappropriate topics with B.T.H., such as the court case or B.T.H.'s foster 

placement. Mother would also interrupt B.T.H. so that Mother could discuss her own 

concerns. The specialist, not Mother, had to provide structure to the visits. The specialist 

observed Mother and B.T.H. play basketball and was concerned that Mother behaved 

aggressively towards her daughter while playing. 

{¶ 15} The specialist also observed Mother acting oddly. Mother began telling 
Butler CA2017-06-080 

 - 5 - 

visitation employees that she was pregnant. However, Mother's varying statements as to the 

stage of the pregnancy aroused suspicion. Mother later told facility employees that the 

pregnancy ended in miscarriage. During one visit, Mother also told B.T.H. that she had a 

"baby doll" and promised B.T.H. that she would bring it to a visit. However, Mother later told 

B.T.H. that the baby doll was too expensive, so she had to return it. Visitation employees 

had to cancel a visit after Mother's behavior indicated she was impaired. 

{¶ 16} B.T.H.'s foster mother testified. The foster mother and her family lived near 

B.T.H. and Mother approximately six years earlier. At that time, B.T.H. was a frequent guest 

at their house. After B.T.H.'s removal, the foster mother saw B.T.H. at a school event and 

arranged to foster B.T.H. while the case proceeded. The foster mother said that B.T.H. had 

her own room and was bonded with her family. The foster mother was willing to adopt B.T.H. 

The caseworker testified that B.T.H. repeatedly indicated to the agency that she wanted to be 

adopted. 

{¶ 17} Mother testified that her mental health was currently "like a rollercoaster. It's up 

and down." She was "a little bit" better than when the case began. Mother denied that she 

told visitation employees that she was pregnant. Mother also denied that her pill counts were 

inaccurate and blamed the counselor's miscalculation. Mother said that she was in the 

process of moving into a new one bedroom apartment where the conditions were better. 

Mother blamed the unsanitary conditions at the old apartment on the dilapidated state of the 

apartment itself, and said the landlord would not make repairs. Mother testified that she 

received around $700 per month in social security income and would receive more if she 

regained custody of B.T.H. 

{¶ 18} A social worker with Mother's mental health agency testified that he had been 

assisting Mother with her daily needs, including transporting her once or twice a month to 

food pantries when she would prematurely use all of her food stamps. The social worker 
Butler CA2017-06-080 

 - 6 - 

observed improvements in Mother's ability to cope with anxiety, by using techniques that she 

had learned from him and others. The social worker said he would not be concerned if 

Mother regained custody of B.T.H. The social worker observed Mother's new apartment and 

agreed that Mother was maintaining it better than the old apartment. In this respect, the 

agency stipulated that they had no concerns with the condition of Mother's new apartment. 

{¶ 19} With respect to B.T.H.'s father, the JFS caseworker testified that the agency 

was able to locate him in November 2015. B.T.H.'s father had no contact with B.T.H. 

between her removal and when the agency located him. B.T.H.'s father then exercised a few 

visits but the agency terminated the visits because B.T.H.'s father would not communicate 

with the agency. The record reflects that the agency served B.T.H.'s father with notice of the 

permanent custody motion but he failed to participate. 

{¶ 20} On the final hearing day, B.T.H.'s attorney filed a motion requesting liberalized 

parenting time between B.T.H. and Mother. Specifically, B.T.H. asked to spend 

unsupervised time with Mother at Mother's new apartment "to see whether she can live with 

her Mother." B.T.H. also asked the juvenile court to make no decision with respect to 

permanent custody until B.T.H. could determine if she wanted to live with Mother. Mother did 

not join in the motion or otherwise indicate her support for the motion. Finally, B.T.H. asked 

the court for an in-camera meeting with the magistrate hearing the case. The court denied 

B.T.H.'s motion with respect to liberalized parenting time but agreed to meet in camera with 

B.T.H. prior to issuing a decision. 

{¶ 21} B.T.H.'s guardian ad litem ("GAL") filed a report recommending permanent 

custody be granted to the agency. The GAL also testified at the permanent custody hearing 

and was cross-examined on the report. The GAL testified that her recommendation would 

not change because B.T.H. had requested liberalized visits with Mother and Mother had 

improved the sanitary conditions of her living environment. Mother's more concerning mental 
Butler CA2017-06-080 

 - 7 - 

health issues remained unresolved. 

{¶ 22} In February 2017, a juvenile court magistrate issued a decision recommending 

that the court grant permanent custody to the agency. The magistrate concluded that 

B.T.H.'s father abandoned B.T.H. The magistrate further concluded that B.T.H. was in the 

agency's temporary custody for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period and 

that placing B.T.H. in the permanent custody of the agency was in the child's best interest. 

The court adopted the magistrate's decision after overruling Mother's objections. Mother now 

appeals the decision, raising two assignments of error. 

{¶ 23} Assignment of Error No. 1: 

{¶ 24} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE OF 

APPELLANT WHEN IT IMPROPERLY DENIED MINOR CHILD'S MOTION FOR A 

CONTINUANCE TO EXPLORE HER INTEREST IN RETURNING HOME WITH HER 

MOTHER. 

{¶ 25} Mother argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it denied 

B.T.H.'s motion for liberalized parenting time without appropriately weighing the child's need 

for a continuance against the prejudice to others. The state argues that Mother lacks 

standing to appeal the denial of B.T.H.'s motion. Alternatively, the state contends that the 

juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Mother did not file a reply 

brief responding to the state's arguments on standing. 

{¶ 26} Standing is a "party's right to make a legal claim or seek judicial enforcement of 

a duty or right." Ohio Pyro, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, 115 Ohio St.3d 375, 2007-Ohio5024, ¶ 27, quoting Black's Law Dictionary (8th Ed.2004) 1442. Stated otherwise, only 

litigants with standing are entitled to have a court determine the merit of an issue presented. 

Moore v. City of Middletown, 133 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-3897, ¶ 20. Whether a party has 

standing is question of law that this court reviews de novo. Id.
Butler CA2017-06-080 

 - 8 - 

{¶ 27} "'[T]he question of standing depends upon whether the party has alleged such 

a "personal stake in the outcome of the controversy," as to ensure that "the dispute sought to 

be adjudicated will be presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as 

capable of judicial resolution."'" (Citations omitted.) State ex rel. Dallman v. Franklin Cty. 

Court of Common Pleas, 35 Ohio St.2d 176, 178-179 (1973), quoting Sierra Club v. Morton, 

405 U.S. 727, 732, 92 S. Ct. 1361 (1972). "It is well-established that an appeal lies only on 

behalf of a party aggrieved by the final order appealed from." Williams v. McFarland 

Properties, L.L.C., 177 Ohio App.3d 490, 2008-Ohio-3594, ¶ 29 (12th Dist.), citing Midwest 

Fireworks Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Deerfield Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 91 Ohio St.3d 174, 2001-

Ohio-24. The party seeking to appeal bears the burden of establishing standing. Id. 

{¶ 28} Mother failed to join in or otherwise demonstrate support for B.T.H.'s motion for 

liberalized parenting time. This court concludes that Mother did not establish a personal 

stake in the outcome of B.T.H.'s motion and therefore lacks standing to appeal the juvenile 

court's partial denial of the motion. See, e.g., In re T.W., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-130080, 

2013-Ohio-1754 (dismissing a father's appeal for lack of standing, which raised arguments 

on behalf of a great-grandmother). In addition, Mother did not respond to the state's standing 

challenge and has failed to meet her burden on appeal. Williams at ¶ 29. However, this 

court's decision would not change if Mother demonstrated standing. 

{¶ 29} As this court will discuss in greater detail in response to Mother's second 

assignment of error, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying B.T.H.'s motion 

because Mother had yet to resolve the mental health issues that caused B.T.H.'s removal. 

Moreover, Mother only had supervised visitation with B.T.H., at a visitation center, during the 

31-month pendency of this case. A sudden transition to unsupervised, in-home parenting 

time would not have been in B.T.H.'s best interest. 

{¶ 30} The court also did not abuse its discretion in denying B.T.H.'s request to delay a 
Butler CA2017-06-080 

 - 9 - 

decision on the permanent custody motion. R.C. 2151.414(A)(2) provides that "[t]he court 

shall issue an order that grants, denies, or otherwise disposes of the motion for permanent 

custody, and journalize the order, not later than two hundred days after the agency files the 

motion." The agency filed its permanent custody motion on July 13, 2016. B.T.H. filed her 

motion on the final day of the custody hearing, i.e., January 25, 2017. Thus, 196 days 

elapsed since the filing of the permanent custody motion. Granting B.T.H.'s request would 

have significantly extended the juvenile court's resolution of the permanent custody motion 

beyond the statutory limit. Additional delay would also be contrary to the policy that juvenile 

custody issues be resolved expeditiously to allow the child to achieve permanence in a living 

arrangement. This court overrules Mother's first assignment of error. 

{¶ 31} Assignment of Error No. 2: 

{¶ 32} THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION TO GRANT BUTLER COUNTY CHILDREN'S 

SERVICES PERMANENT CUSTODY IS NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING 

EVIDENCE. 

{¶ 33} Mother argues that the evidence does not clearly and convincingly support the 

conclusion that granting permanent custody to the agency was in B.T.H.'s best interest. 

Mother argues that the evidence showed a strong bond between Mother and B.T.H. and that 

Mother complied with the case plan's requirements to seek counseling for her mental health 

issues. While Mother concedes that the agency had some concerns, especially with respect 

to her prescription medication issues, she contends that these concerns did not outweigh 

Mother's progress in the case plan. 

{¶ 34} Before a natural parent's constitutionally protected liberty interest in the care 

and custody of her child may be terminated, the state is required to prove by clear and 

convincing evidence that the statutory standards for permanent custody have been met. 

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 769, 102 S.Ct. 1388 (1982); R.C. 2151.414(B)(1). An 
Butler CA2017-06-080 

 - 10 - 

appellate court's review of a juvenile court's decision granting permanent custody is limited to 

whether sufficient credible evidence exists to support the juvenile court's determination. In re 

J.H., 12th Dist. Clinton Nos. CA2015-07-014 and CA2015-07-015, 2016-Ohio-640, ¶ 21. 

{¶ 35} Pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1), a court may terminate parental rights and 

award permanent custody to a children services agency if the court makes findings pursuant 

to a two-part test. First, the court must find that the grant of permanent custody to the 

agency is in the best interest of the child, utilizing, in part, the factors of R.C. 2151.414(D). 

Second, the court must find that any of the following apply: (1) the child is abandoned, (2) the 

child is orphaned, (3) the child has been in the temporary custody of the agency for at least 

12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, (4) where the preceding three factors do not 

apply, the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be 

placed with either parent, or (5) the child or another child in the custody of the parent from 

whose custody the child has been removed, has been adjudicated an abused, neglected, or 

dependent child on three separate occasions. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)-(e). Only one of those 

findings must be met to satisfy the second prong of the permanent custody test. In re 

D.K.W., 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2014-02-001, 2014-Ohio-2896, ¶ 22. 

{¶ 36} In this case, the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that 

B.T.H. had been in JFS' temporary custody for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month 

period. Mother does not dispute this finding. Rather, Mother disputes that granting 

permanent custody of B.T.H. to the agency was in B.T.H.'s best interest. 

{¶ 37} R.C. 2151.414(D)(1), provides: 

[T]he court shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not 

limited to, the following: 

(a) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the 

child's parents, siblings, relatives, foster caregivers and out-ofhome providers, and any other person who may significantly 

affect the child; 
Butler CA2017-06-080 

 - 11 - 

(b) The wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the child or 

through the child's guardian ad litem, with due regard for the 

maturity of the child; 

(c) The custodial history of the child, including whether the child 

has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children 

services agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or 

more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period * * *; 

(d) The child's need for a legally secure permanent placement 

and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a 

grant of permanent custody to the agency; 

(e) Whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this 

section apply in relation to the parents and child. 

{¶ 38} In granting JFS's motion for permanent custody, the juvenile court considered 

each of the best interest factors. With respect to the first statutory factor, the juvenile court 

found that B.T.H.'s father had little contact with her during the case and that B.T.H. was not 

bonded with her father. The court found that B.T.H. and Mother were bonded and that 

Mother had supervised visits with B.T.H. throughout the case. The court noted that B.T.H. 

consistently indicated her desire to be adopted until the last day of the permanent custody 

hearing. The court observed that B.T.H. was comfortable in her current home and was 

closely bonded to her foster family, who had expressed a willingness to adopt her. 

{¶ 39} In consideration of the second statutory factor, the juvenile court indicated that 

B.T.H. expressed her wishes and concerns to the court in camera, which the court 

considered in rendering its decision. The court also noted that it considered the report and 

recommendation of the GAL, who recommended permanent custody be granted to the 

agency. 

{¶ 40} With respect to the third statutory factor, the juvenile court reviewed the child's 

custodial history and found that the court placed B.T.H. in the agency's temporary custody 

beginning in May 2015 and B.T.H. remained in JFS's custody through the remainder of the 

case. The court also noted that the agency filed its permanent custody complaint on July 13, 
Butler CA2017-06-080 

 - 12 - 

2016, when B.T.H. had been in the agency's temporary custody for more than 12 months of 

a consecutive 22-month period. 

{¶ 41} In considering the fourth statutory factor, the juvenile court found that B.T.H. 

needed a legally secure placement, which could not be achieved without a grant of 

permanent custody to the agency. In this regard, the juvenile court observed that B.T.H. had 

been out of her Mother's custody for 31 months while the case was pending. During that 

time, Mother had been referred for assistance for her issues with mental health and 

parenting. However, Mother failed to remedy the behaviors and concerns that caused 

B.T.H.'s removal. Finally, no relatives expressed any interest in taking custody of B.T.H. 

{¶ 42} With respect to the fifth statutory factor, the juvenile court noted that B.T.H.'s 

father abandoned her. 

{¶ 43} Based on these findings, the juvenile court found by clear and convincing 

evidence that it was in B.T.H.'s best interest to grant permanent custody to JFS. After a 

thorough review of the record, we find that the juvenile court's determination regarding the 

best interest of B.T.H. is supported by sufficient credible evidence. 

{¶ 44} However, Mother argues that there was a lack of evidence submitted 

concerning how terminating her relationship with B.T.H. could affect B.T.H.'s well-being. 

Mother cites a case from the Ninth District Court of Appeals where the court reversed a grant 

of permanent custody. In re A.W., 9th Dist. Lorain No. 09CA009631, 2010-Ohio-817. In 

A.W., the court of appeals reversed after finding a "paucity" of evidence demonstrating that 

permanent custody was in the child's best interest. Id. at ¶ 12. The court observed that most 

evidence in the record weighed towards preserving the family relationship. Id. at ¶ 14. A.W. 

is distinguishable. Here there was substantial evidence in the record to support the 

conclusion that Mother's mental health problems, her issues with prescription medications, 

and her inability to maintain a sanitary home environment prevented Mother from providing 
Butler CA2017-06-080 

 - 13 - 

B.T.H. with a safe and stable permanent living arrangement. Although it is conceivable and 

understandable that B.T.H. could suffer some detriment by terminating the parental 

relationship with Mother, the evidence clearly and convincingly established that permanent 

custody in favor of the agency was the most appropriate disposition. 

{¶ 45} Specifically, no dispositional alternative, other than permanent custody was 

legally or practically viable. An order extending temporary custody pursuant to R.C. 

2151.415(A)(6) was not an available dispositional alternative, as R.C. 2151.415(D)(4) 

prohibits an extension of temporary custody beyond two years after the filing of the July 2014 

complaint. An order for a planned permanent living arrangement pursuant to R.C. 

2151.415(A)(5) was not an available dispositional alternative, as B.T.H. was not yet sixteen 

years old as required by R.C. 2151.415(C)(1). An order placing B.T.H. in the legal custody of 

a relative or other interested individual was not an available dispositional alternative as no 

such person filed a motion requesting legal custody or was identified in the complaint or a 

motion as a proposed legal custodian as provided by R.C. 2151.353(A)(3). Finally, orders 

that B.T.H. be returned to the custody of a parent or placed into the protective supervision of 

a parent pursuant to R.C. 2151.415(A)(1) and (2), respectively, were practically unavailable. 

Mother failed to remedy the conditions necessitating B.T.H.'s removal from Mother's custody 

and father had no relationship with B.T.H. and had abandoned her. 

{¶ 46} Mother also argues that this case is comparable to one where this court 

reversed a decision granting permanent custody to a family services agency. In re Knuckles, 

12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2003-01-004 and CA2003-01-005, 2003-Ohio-4418. In Knuckles 

the lower court granted permanent custody largely because the parents failed to attend visits 

with their children and failed to complete case services. Id. at ¶ 21, 25. This court reversed, 

finding that the record revealed that the parents did not attend visits or complete case 

services because of transportation issues. Id. at ¶ 26. The record further reflected that the 
Butler CA2017-06-080 

 - 14 - 

agency failed to assist the parents with their transportation needs. Id. at ¶ 27. The visits the 

parents could attend demonstrated that the family was well-bonded. Id. at ¶ 23. In sum, we 

found that the record did not clearly and convincingly demonstrate that the parents could not 

provide their children with a legally secure placement. Id. at ¶ 33. In this case, however, the 

record established that Mother failed over a lengthy period to resolve many of the issues that 

led to B.T.H.'s removal and there was no indication that JFS failed to provide any necessary 

assistance to Mother to help her resolve those issues. 

{¶ 47} The record reflects a bond between Mother and B.T.H. The record further 

reflects that Mother began to make some improvements in maintaining a sanitary living 

space, but not until after the agency filed for permanent custody. However, there are 

compelling reasons to weigh the best interest factors in favor of permanent custody to JFS. 

The agency's involvement with Mother spanned the entirety of B.T.H.'s life and included 

some 15 cases. The agency's primary concern was Mother's mental health. In the years 

while B.T.H. was out of Mother's custody, Mother did not substantially improve her mental 

health issues. This is reflected in the fact that Mother and B.T.H.'s visits were always held at 

the highest level of supervision, largely because of Mother's inappropriate behavior. Mother 

conceded that her mental state was "like a rollercoaster." Mother failed to resolve the 

agency's concerns with her prescribed medications. Mother also exhibited poor decisionmaking with respect to the persons who she allowed in her residence. B.T.H. needs 

permanency and cannot and should not wait until Mother is able to resolve her mental health 

issues. Accordingly, this court overrules Mother's second assignment of error. 

{¶ 48} Judgment affirmed. 

 HENDRICKSON, P.J., and PIPER, J., concur.