Court Opinion

ID: 9385883
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-10 16:07:51.512277+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:54.242625
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re C.T.L.V., 2023-Ohio-1182.]

                                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                            TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

                                            BUTLER COUNTY

 IN RE:                                           :

        C.T.L.V.                                  :         CASE NO. CA2022-12-122

                                                  :              OPINION
                                                                  4/10/2023
                                                  :

                                                  :

                                                  :

               APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                               JUVENILE DIVISION
                              Case No. JN2021-0115

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael Greer, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee, Butler County Department of Job and Family Services.

Michele Temmel, for appellee, father.

Mark Raines, for appellant.

Legal Aid Society of Southwest Ohio, LLC., and Jamie Lee Landvatter, guardian ad litem.

        PIPER, J.

        {¶1}     Appellant, Mother, appeals a decision of the Butler County Court of Common

Pleas, Juvenile Division, granting permanent custody of her daughter, C.T.L.V., to the Butler

County Department of Job and Family Services ("BCDJFS"). The child's Father did not
                                                                            Butler CA2022-12-122

appeal.1 For the reasons detailed below, we affirm.

                                     Preliminary Background

       {¶2}    C.T.L.V. is a female child born on August 20, 2013. Mother and Father are

immigrants from Guatemala and C.T.L.V. was not born in the United States. The record

further indicates Mother and Father also have two other children.

       {¶3}    While the reasons for doing so are disputed, Father, at some point, moved to

Ohio taking C.T.L.V. with him.          Mother claims that Father took C.T.L.V. without her

permission and that Father would not allow her to communicate with C.T.L.V. At the time

of the permanent custody hearing, Mother acknowledged that she had not seen C.T.L.V. in

person for five years.

       {¶4}    C.T.L.V. had significant cognitive delays which have improved, but still exist

in varying degrees. The foster mother stated that when first arriving in her care, C.T.L.V.

had the cognitive ability of an approximately one-and-one-half-year-old child, despite being

seven years old. Furthermore, foster mother stated that when C.T.L.V. first arrived, she

was remarkably nonverbal. Throughout these proceedings, C.T.L.V. has become more

verbal with an increasing ability to communicate in both English and Spanish.

                               Initial Proceedings Upon Removal

       {¶5}    On April 16, 2021, BCDJFS refiled an abuse, neglect, and dependency

complaint regarding C.T.L.V. seeking temporary custody.2                 In the refiled complaint,

BCDJFS alleged that on October 12, 2020, the Hamilton Police Department conducted a

police removal of C.T.L.V. after she was left for an indeterminate period of time unattended

in a vehicle at Miami Valley Gaming.

1. Father also did not appear at the permanent custody hearing.

2. BCDJFS filed a previous complaint which is not contained in the record thereby providing incomplete
information as to why the complaint was refiled.

                                                  -2-
                                                                                 Butler CA2022-12-122

        {¶6}    The same day she was removed, C.T.L.V. was admitted to the Cincinnati

Children's Hospital. Hospital staff discovered that C.T.L.V. had internal injuries to her

vagina, which indicated sexual abuse. Hospital staff also discovered "male DNA" on

C.T.L.V.'s body. BCDJFS stated there was an ongoing criminal investigation and it had

received allegations that C.T.L.V.'s father was the alleged perpetrator of the possible sexual

abuse.3

        {¶7}    According to the refiled complaint, Father had not enrolled C.T.L.V. in school

despite the child having reached the age of seven in October 2020. The refiled complaint

further indicated that Mother's whereabouts was not initially known but that she had since

been located in Homestead, Florida. The refiled complaint then indicated that a home study

request had been submitted to the state of Florida under the Interstate Compact for the

Placement of Children ("ICPC").

        {¶8}    Following a hearing, the juvenile court granted an emergency ex parte order

granting temporary custody to BCDJFS. The juvenile court then ordered that Father have

no contact with C.T.L.V. Mother's contact with the child was to occur at the discretion of

BCDJFS.

        {¶9}    The ICPC home study stated that Mother did not have appropriate housing,

as the home was in a deplorable condition with mold "everywhere." There was only one

full size bed in the residence where Mother and her two other children would sleep. Mother

reportedly stated that she would be moving soon and would notify the "primary worker" after

she moved.

        {¶10} On May 11, 2021, the juvenile court held a hearing on the refiled complaint.

3. Subsequently, at the permanent custody hearing, the caseworker testified that no charges had been filed
to date. It her was understanding there was still an open investigation. Father denied ever sexually abusing
C.T.L.V.

                                                   -3-
                                                                              Butler CA2022-12-122

BCDJFS moved to amend the refiled complaint to withdraw the abuse allegations. BCDJFS

noted that a case plan was filed in November 2020 under the original case number and

requested the juvenile court adopt the case plan for these proceedings. BCDJFS further

requested that Mother be added to the case plan. Thereafter, Mother and Father agreed

to the adjudication that C.T.L.V. was a dependent and neglected child. 4 The juvenile court

then found C.T.L.V. to be neglected and dependent, and adopted the prior case plan with

Mother now included. The case plan included requirements that Mother attain appropriate

housing, gain employment, and submit to another home study. The juvenile court further

stated that visitation between C.T.L.V. and Mother would begin once it was recommended

by C.T.L.V.'s therapist.

       {¶11} On August 19, 2021, the juvenile court held a review hearing during which

Mother's counsel discussed the difficulties Mother was having in obtaining assistance in

order to contact C.T.L.V.

       {¶12} The guardian ad litem ("GAL") stated C.T.L.V.'s therapist had concerns about

reintegrating the parents into C.T.L.V.'s current situation. C.T.L.V. had not been receiving

consistent care and had the speech skills of a three-and-one-half-year-old child. However,

the juvenile court agreed there should be some communication between C.T.L.V. and her

parents. The juvenile court issued an order in an effort to facilitate communication with the

child, stating:

                  The BCDJFS shall advise this child's therapist that her mother
                  and father both desire to have some communication with
                  [C.T.L.V.]. Her therapist shall be advised that movement
                  towards some communication, which can be structured, limited,
                  or arranged in any way deemed to be necessary to keep
                  [C.T.L.V.] comfortable needs to occur as soon as may be
                  practicable.

4. Mother attended the court proceedings by phone. She only appeared in person for the permanent custody
hearing.

                                                 -4-
                                                                      Butler CA2022-12-122

       {¶13} However, Mother only sporadically contacted the caseworker and as a result

only had two video calls with C.T.L.V.

                    Subsequent Permanent Custody Determination

       {¶14} On January 12, 2022, BCDJFS moved for permanent custody.                    The

permanent custody hearing was held on August 2, 2022. At the permanent custody hearing,

the juvenile court heard testimony from Mother, C.T.L.V.'s foster mother, the BCDJFS

caseworker, and C.T.L.V.'s therapist. The GAL also provided a report recommending

permanent custody be granted to BCDJFS.

       {¶15} Mother testified that she previously lived in Florida with Father and all three

children. Mother stated that Father was abusive and would hit her, sometimes after he had

been drinking but also while he was sober. According to Mother, Father left Florida with

C.T.L.V. without her permission. Mother stated that she arrived home one day and Father

and C.T.L.V. were gone. Mother testified that she did not file a missing persons report.

Mother explained that although she was aware she could have called the police, she did

not contact the police because she was afraid Father would retaliate against her. Mother

took no steps to locate C.T.L.V. or retrieve her from Father. Although Mother thought Father

would take care of C.T.L.V., Mother also acknowledged that she had concerns that Father

might do "something" to C.T.L.V.

       {¶16} Mother admitted that she failed the first home study due to the poor conditions

of her living arrangements. Mother also admitted to failing a second home study because

she failed to report that her boyfriend was living in the residence. Mother testified that she

was employed full time at a plant nursery. Mother stated that she had another family

member who provided care for her two other children while she worked.

       {¶17} The caseworker stated that Mother's engagement throughout these

proceedings was erratic. Furthermore, Mother had not seen C.T.L.V. for years. The

                                            -5-
                                                                                   Butler CA2022-12-122

caseworker testified that Mother only had two video calls with C.T.L.V. The caseworker did

not observe the first video call but noted the second video call only lasted approximately 15

to 20 minutes. The caseworker stated that during the call C.T.L.V. appeared very anxious

and clung to her foster mother. The caseworker stated that as the video call progressed

C.T.L.V. appeared excited to see her siblings despite indicating that she did not remember

them.

        {¶18} The caseworker explained that it would be very difficult for Mother to

reestablish a relationship with C.T.L.V. due to the lengthy period of time apart from her.

The caseworker also confirmed that Mother failed two home studies. The caseworker

further addressed other concerns. For example, C.T.L.V. is on an IEP and was scheduled

to be placed in a resource room for the next school year. 5 C.T.L.V. has been diagnosed

with PTSD and is in ongoing speech therapy, occupational therapy, and play therapy. The

caseworker stated that Mother would not know how to meet C.T.L.V.'s special needs.

        {¶19} The caseworker testified that C.T.L.V. is thriving with her foster family.

C.T.L.V. was initially an extremely fearful child who tended to hide under tables, but has

made significant strides and is now happier and appears more comfortable.                                 The

caseworker stated that C.T.L.V. has bonded with her foster family and that the foster family

is able to meet C.T.L.V.'s special needs.

        {¶20} C.T.L.V.'s foster mother testified that C.T.L.V. has remained in her care since

October 2020. When foster mother first met C.T.L.V. in the hospital, C.T.L.V. was very

small, malnourished, and had notable dark circles under her eyes. According to the foster

mother, C.T.L.V. was basically nonverbal. While C.T.L.V. can now use full sentences, she

still struggles to communicate. Foster mother was able to enroll C.T.L.V. in school. Initially,

5. An Individualized Educational Plan designed for the specific needs of a particular child is known as an IEP.

                                                     -6-
                                                                                   Butler CA2022-12-122

C.T.L.V. was placed on a 504 plan for her protection.6 C.T.L.V. had to repeat the second

grade.     However, at the time of the permanent custody hearing, C.T.L.V. had been

promoted to the third grade and was on an IEP. Foster mother testified that C.T.L.V. has

dramatically improved and was thriving.

         {¶21} C.T.L.V.'s foster mother also testified about the video calls between C.T.L.V.

and Mother. Foster mother testified that C.T.L.V. was very nervous during the calls and

C.T.L.V. clung to the foster mother. Foster mother also testified that during the first video

call, Mother and C.T.L.V. mostly just waved at each other. During the second video call,

the foster mother stated that C.T.L.V. was calmer, but there was limited engagement during

the call. Foster mother explained "there was a lot of waving initially." Foster mother stated

that the second video call only lasted approximately 10 to 15 minutes.

         {¶22} C.T.L.V.'s foster mother indicated that she wanted to adopt C.T.L.V. and that

C.T.L.V. is very bonded to her daughters. Foster mother has five daughters, one of whom

was also adopted and was originally from C.T.L.V.'s home country of Guatemala.

         {¶23} Next, the state called C.T.L.V.'s therapist, Adriana Blazer, as a witness.

Blazer testified that she had been working with C.T.L.V. for over a year. Blazer explained

that she has not been able to start trauma therapy with C.T.L.V. since C.T.L.V. could not

fully express her feelings due to poor language skills. When she began treating C.T.L.V.,

Blazer stated that C.T.L.V. was very anxious and nonverbal. As therapy progressed, Blazer

stated that she had observed C.T.L.V.'s improvements in regard to her ability to

comprehend and her use of language. Blazer indicated that C.T.L.V. seems happy with her

foster home and has a positive relationship with her foster mother.

6. The foster mother testified that the 504 plan was in place for C.T.L.V.'s protection because the goal at the
time was to get her socialized in school. The foster mother explained that the focus was not on academics at
that point, but rather to help C.T.L.V. adapt to being in school and capable of interacting with others.

                                                     -7-
                                                                                   Butler CA2022-12-122

        {¶24} The GAL's report noted an additional observation regarding an in-person visit

Mother had with C.T.L.V. The GAL observed that the visit lasted approximately one hour

at a local park. When C.T.L.V. saw Mother, C.T.L.V. reportedly began to cry. C.T.L.V.

clung to her foster mother and indicated that she wanted to return to her foster home. The

visit ended because Mother tried to hug C.T.L.V. and C.T.L.V. began crying again. The

GAL's report concluded that permanent custody should be granted to BCDJFS.

        {¶25} On August 31, 2022, the magistrate issued an entry granting BCDJFS's

motion for permanent custody. Mother filed objections to the magistrate's decision. Mother

argued that the termination of her parental rights was not in C.T.L.V.'s best interest. Mother

believes she is a fit custodial parent. Mother claims that she was prevented from visiting

C.T.L.V., and was not given a genuine opportunity for reunification. On November 22, 2022,

the juvenile court overruled Mother's objections and adopted the magistrate's decision.

Mother timely appeals, raising a single assignment of error for review.

                                            Issue on Appeal

        {¶26} Mother's sole assignment of error is as follows:

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

CHILDREN'S SERVICES PERMANENT CUSTODY IS NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR

AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.

        {¶28} In her sole assignment of error, Mother argues the juvenile court's decision is

not supported by clear and convincing evidence.7 Mother argues the juvenile court and

BCDJFS prevented her from repairing her relationship with C.T.L.V. Mother maintains that

neither the juvenile court nor BCDJFS made any meaningful efforts to repair her relationship

7. In the "issue presented for review," Mother selectively addresses only a few of the best interest factors to
be considered. However, there are additional factors that must be considered when determining a child's best
interest in permanent custody matters.

                                                     -8-
                                                                         Butler CA2022-12-122

with C.T.L.V. to determine if Mother could be a "good option for the child." She further

argues the court hindered C.T.L.V.'s ability to have meaningful contact with her biological

sisters. Consequently, Mother requests this court remand the case to the juvenile court

with orders for a plan to transition C.T.L.V. back into Mother's care.

                                     Standard of Review

       {¶29} 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, 748, 102 S.Ct. 1388 (1982). An 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 M.B., 12th Dist.

Butler Nos. CA2014-06-130 and CA2014-06-131, 2014-Ohio-5009, ¶ 6. A reviewing court

will reverse a finding by the juvenile court that the evidence was clear and convincing only

if there is a sufficient conflict in the evidence presented. Id.

       {¶30} In determining whether a juvenile court's decision to grant a motion for

permanent custody is against the manifest weight of the evidence, an appellate court

"'weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses

and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the finder of fact clearly lost

its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the judgment must be

reversed and a new trial ordered.'" In re S.M., 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2018-08-088 thru

CA2018-08-091 and CA2018-08-094 thru CA2018-08-097, 2019-Ohio-198, ¶ 16, quoting

Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶ 20. "In weighing the evidence,

there is a presumption in favor of the findings made by the finder of fact and evidence

susceptible to more than one construction will be construed to sustain the verdict and

judgment." In re M.A., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2019-08-129, 2019-Ohio-5367, ¶ 15.

                                              -9-
                                                                          Butler CA2022-12-122

                                   Relevant Statutory Law

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

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

two-part test. In re G.F., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2013-12-248, 2014-Ohio-2580, ¶ 9. 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). In re D.K.W., 12th Dist. Clinton

No. CA2014-02-001, 2014-Ohio-2896, ¶ 21. 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); In re C.B., 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2015-04-033,

2015-Ohio-3709, ¶ 10. Only one of the above findings must be applicable for the second

part of the permanent custody test to be satisfied. In re A.W., 12th Dist. Fayette No.

CA2014-03-005, 2014-Ohio-3188, ¶ 12.

       {¶32} In this case, C.T.L.V. has been in the temporary custody of BCDJFS for more

than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period at the time BCDJFS filed its motion for

permanent custody. This satisfies the second part of the test. Therefore, we now must

consider the first part of the test which involves the best interest factors. Id.

       {¶33} When considering the best interest of a child in a permanent custody hearing,

the juvenile court is required under R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) to consider all relevant factors.

This includes, but is not limited to: (1) the interaction and interrelationship of the child with

the child's parents, siblings, relatives, foster caregivers and out-of-town providers, and any

                                              - 10 -
                                                                        Butler CA2022-12-122

other person who may significantly affect the child; (2) the wishes of the child, as expressed

directly by the child or through the child's guardian ad litem; (3) the custodial history of the

child; (4) 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; and (5)

whether any of the factors listed in R.C. 2151.414(E)(7) to (11) apply in relation to the

parents and child.

                                           Analysis

       {¶34} In granting the motion for permanent custody, the juvenile court considered

each of the best interest factors in light of the evidence presented at the hearing. With

respect to R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a), the juvenile court stated C.T.L.V. had been in her

Father's care at the time of the police removal. Approximately three years prior to C.T.L.V.'s

removal, Father had taken her to Ohio leaving Mother and C.T.L.V.'s two other siblings

behind.   The juvenile court noted there were differing accounts concerning Father's

motivations for leaving with C.T.L.V. However, Mother admitted that she knew Father had

taken C.T.L.V. to Ohio. She acknowledged that she took no action to try to find C.T.L.V.

Mother further admitted that she had not seen C.T.L.V. in person in five years.

       {¶35} When Mother was located, her home study failed because of the poor

condition of her residence with mold "everywhere" and there being only one bed in which

she and her two other children slept. A second home study was conducted later, which

also failed because Mother misled the assessors regarding another adult, Mother's

boyfriend, residing in the home.

       {¶36} The juvenile court noted that C.T.L.V. did not have any contact with Father

since the police removal. Due to concerns regarding her medical condition, including

allegations that C.T.L.V. had been sexually abused, Father was ordered to have no contact

                                             - 11 -
                                                                                  Butler CA2022-12-122

with C.T.L.V. Father participated minimally with his case plan services.8 The juvenile court

further noted that there were concerns about Father's excessive alcohol use and having

multiple men present or living in his residence.

        {¶37} The juvenile court stated that efforts were made to facilitate video calls

between C.T.L.V. and Mother. Given C.T.L.V.'s age, speech limitations, and the time of

separation, the virtual contact was limited and, as the juvenile court described, "superficial."

The only time Mother travelled to Ohio was for the permanent custody hearing. It was at

that time that Mother had the opportunity to visit C.T.L.V. in person. The juvenile court

noted that during the visit C.T.L.V. had time to warm up to Mother, but that effort failed, and

the visit was not productive.

        {¶38} C.T.L.V. is doing well in her foster home, which she calls her home. At the

time of police removal, C.T.L.V. was nonverbal. Foster mother speaks Spanish and spent

the night with C.T.L.V. in the hospital and began to forge their relationship. When C.T.L.V.

came into foster care, she was malnourished and prone to anger. While C.T.L.V. still suffers

delays, she is described by foster mother as being confident, loving, observant, and

empathetic. The foster family has incorporated C.T.L.V. into their home and family. Foster

mother expressed interest in adopting C.T.L.V. if presented the opportunity.

        {¶39} In its consideration of R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(b), the juvenile court indicated that

C.T.L.V. had not been interviewed. The GAL submitted a report recommending permanent

custody be granted to BCDJFS.

        {¶40} With respect to R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(c), the juvenile court reviewed the

custodial history of C.T.L.V. The juvenile court found C.T.L.V. has been in the temporary

8. During a hearing, Father's counsel indicated that the transportation service provided for him was routinely
late, contributing to him missing appointments. Later, the assistant prosecutor noted that Father lived only
four or five blocks from where the appointments took place.

                                                   - 12 -
                                                                        Butler CA2022-12-122

custody of BCDJFS for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period.

          {¶41} In considering R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(d), the juvenile court found C.T.L.V. is in

need of a legally secure placement and such placement is the only way C.T.L.V.'s needs

can be achieved. C.T.L.V.'s Father has been absent from C.T.L.V.'s life since she was

removed from his care in October 2020. C.T.L.V.'s Mother did nothing when Father took

C.T.L.V. to Ohio and was without contact with her for many years. When Mother was

located in Florida, she was found to be residing in a home in a deplorable condition and

had to relocate. However, upon relocating, Mother failed a second home study because

she was dishonest with the home study assessor regarding who resided in the home.

          {¶42} Meanwhile, C.T.L.V. has thrived in her foster placement and is having her

special needs met. The juvenile court noted that C.T.L.V. considers her foster family to be

her family. The record reflects that C.T.L.V. is well-cared for and bonded with her foster

family.

          {¶43} Finally, with respect to R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(e), the juvenile court found that

both Mother and Father abandoned C.T.L.V. Again, the juvenile court stated that Father

has had no contact with C.T.L.V. and has done little to rectify the situation. Even accepting

Mother's explanation that Father wrongfully took C.T.L.V. away, she did nothing to retrieve

her.

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

evidence that it was in the C.T.L.V.'s best interest to grant permanent custody to BCDJFS.

On appeal, Mother claims the juvenile court and BCDJFS prevented her from repairing her

relationship with C.T.L.V. and hindered C.T.L.V.'s ability to have meaningful contact with

her siblings. She argues that "BCDJFS certainly did not show enough to prove by clear

and convincing evidence that this relationship couldn't be repaired."

          {¶45} We have carefully and thoroughly reviewed the evidence in this case and find

                                             - 13 -
                                                                      Butler CA2022-12-122

that the juvenile court's determination regarding the best interest of C.T.L.V. is supported

by clear and convincing evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Though Mother states that she is employed, has suitable housing, and manages to take

care of her other children, the record reflects that she cannot provide the continued care

and attention that C.T.L.V. needs. Even accepting Mother's claim that Father wrongfully

took C.T.L.V. without her knowledge, she failed to do anything over the ensuing years to

protect or even maintain contact with C.T.L.V. Mother admitted that she failed to act out of

concern for her own well-being. Mother further admitted that she was concerned that Father

might do something to C.T.L.V., yet still failed to act. Mother's concern was well-founded,

as C.T.L.V. was never enrolled in school and was possibly sexually abused while in Father's

care.

        {¶46} Mother complains that the juvenile court and BCDJFS did not do more to

expand the relationship between herself and C.T.L.V. She further maintains "the court"

hindered C.T.L.V.'s ability to have meaningful contact with her other siblings. Yet this

argument ignores the reality of the situation. Mother had already abandoned C.T.L.V. and

had not seen her for years before C.T.L.V. was removed from Father's care. Even under

different circumstances, it would have been difficult to reestablish a meaningful relationship

with C.T.L.V. It was even more complicated in this case due to C.T.L.V.'s cognitive delays

and limited communication skills. Although Mother, on a few occasions, indicated that she

wanted to communicate with C.T.L.V., the juvenile court had to weigh the competing

circumstances.

        {¶47} C.T.L.V. had a limited ability to communicate, had experienced childhood

trauma, and had been abandoned by her parents.            Mother was also sporadic in her

communication with the caseworker and never appeared in Ohio to see C.T.L.V. until the

permanent custody hearing. In light of this, the juvenile court made efforts to arrange for

                                            - 14 -
                                                                        Butler CA2022-12-122

communication between Mother and C.T.L.V., which were conducted through video calls.

Though Mother complains that the juvenile court or BCDJFS should have done more, this

situation was Mother's own doing. She did nothing when Father left for Ohio with C.T.L.V.

and made no efforts to locate C.T.L.V. in order to check on her well-being. Even after

having failed her first home study, Mother failed a second home study because she was not

completely honest with the home study assessors.

                                         Conclusion

       {¶48} While in the temporary custody of BCDJFS, C.T.L.V. has thrived and received

treatment for her medical conditions and cognitive delays. C.T.L.V. is bonded with her

foster family and the foster mother has expressed an interest in providing a stable, safe

environment in which C.T.L.V. can continue to thrive. In light of the foregoing, we find there

is sufficient, credible evidence – which was also clear and convincing – supporting the

juvenile court's decision. We further find the juvenile court as the factfinder did not lose its

way, nor create a manifest miscarriage of justice requiring reversal. There was no error in

the juvenile court's decision to grant permanent custody to BCDJFS.              Mother's sole

assignment of error is overruled.

       {¶49} Judgment affirmed.

       HENDRICKSON, P.J., and BYRNE, J., concur.

                                             - 15 -