In re E.B.

R.C. 2151.414/permanent custody best interest of the child manifest weight. The trial court's determination that CCDCFS made reasonable efforts to reunite Mother and children was proper. The trial court considered factors under R.C. 2151.414 for abandonment, lack of action, best interest of the children and custodial history. The trial court's judgment of permanent custody to CCDCFS was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant's argument that the trial court committed reversible error fails where the record supports that the trial court's determination was in the best interest of the children.

PARENTAL TERMINATION — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY —MANIFEST WEIGHT — R.C. 2151.414 — BEST INTEREST: The juvenile court's judgment terminating Mother's parental rights and granting permanent custody of her child to the child services agency was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the child had lived with the same foster-to-adopt family for five years, the child was bonded with the foster family, a psychological evaluation of the child revealed that the child suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder caused by Mother's past neglect, Mother's inconsistent visitations caused the child anxiety, and Mother abandoned the child for a significant period of time.

PARENTAL TERMINATION — PERMANENT CUSTODY — EVIDENCE — MANIFEST WEIGHT — BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD — LEGALLY SECURE PLACEMENT — ABANDONMENT: Where Mother failed to assert in her objection to the magistrate's decision that the magistrate's decision was not supported by sufficient evidence, and she did not advance a plain-error argument on appeal, she has failed to preserve this argument for appeal. The juvenile court's decision to commit the children to the permanent custody of the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence where the evidence demonstrated that permanent custody was in the children's best interest where the record and testimony showed that the children had been in the agency's care for approximately 16 consecutive months, and Mother (1) failed to visit the children for nearly three years, (2) refused to sign a release of information so that she could be referred for services, including making a referral so that Mother could continue supervised visits, (3) failed to remedy the concerns regarding her housing, including having working utilities, and (4) failed to verify her income. The juvenile court's finding that the children could not be placed with Mother within a reasonable time or should not be placed with Mother was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence where the evidence demonstrated that she did not remedy the issues that initially caused the children to be removed from her care.

Termination of parental rights permanent custody R.C. 2151.414 best interest of the child clear and convincing evidence. The court's termination of Mother's parental rights and award of permanent custody to the agency was supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record. Evidence presented at the hearing supported the court's findings that the children had been in agency custody for 12 or more months of a consecutive 22-month period, that the children cannot or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, and that the award of permanent custody to the agency was in the children's best interest.

PARENTAL TERMINATION — PERMANENT CUSTODY —REASONABLE EFFORTS — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY — MANIFEST WEIGHT: The juvenile court's decision to commit the children to the permanent custody of the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services was based on competent, credible evidence where the parents' visitation never progressed from supervised, they failed to obtain stable housing and income and submit to drug tests, they did not demonstrate understanding of the children's trauma and special needs, and although the parents obtained housing they did so less than four months prior to the trial on the permanent-custody motion and had no furniture for the children in the home. Where Mother failed to assert in her objections to the magistrate's decision that the juvenile court did not make reasonable-efforts findings, she has failed to preserve this argument for appeal.