in the Matter of the Marriage of Teresa L. Campero and Adalberto Campero and in the Interest of A.C., A.C.J., and A.Z.C., Children

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.

<bold>1. Child Support, Custody, and Visitation — custody —</bold> <bold>jurisdiction — home state</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err by declining jurisdiction over this child custody matter and by concluding that Vermont was the home state of the children, because: (1) the minor children were not living in North Carolina for the required six months prior to the commencement of plaintiff mother's custody proceedings, and except for a six-week period in January and February 2002, the minor children lived continuously in Vermont from August 2001 to July 2002; (2) the totality of circumstances shows the six-week absence was merely a temporary absence, and in light of the numerous relocations and decisions, the parties' intent at the specific time they retrieved the minor children standing alone should not control the determination of whether the absence was temporary; (3) the length of absence from Vermont was a relatively short period of time, especially when compared to the fact that the minor children had spent almost the entire previous year in Vermont; and (4) Vermont's exercise of jurisdiction is proper under both North Carolina's UCCJEA provisions and Vermont's UCCJA provisions.</block_quote> <bold>2. Child Support, Custody, and Visitation — custody — notice —</bold> <bold>substantial conformity</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err in a child custody case when it found that Vermont had issued its order in substantial conformity with the UCCJA and that plaintiff mother had notice and was aware of the pendency of the issue of jurisdiction before the Vermont court on 18 September 2002, because: (1) plaintiff conceded that the notice of hearing stated in all capital letters that both parties must appear and failure to appear meant it was possible for the court to issue parental rights and responsibilities based on the evidence presented by the other party; and (2) plaintiff responded to defendant's motion and specifically raised

The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in awarding permanent custody of an abused, neglected and dependent three-year-old to a children services agency. Clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that the child's best interest would be served by awarding permanent custody to the agency and allowing the child to remain in the care of the child's foster parents of more than two years, who were interested in adopting the child. The juvenile court also did not abuse its discretion by awarding legal custody of neglected and dependent 12- and two-year-old siblings to unrelated caregivers with whom both had lived for more than two years. The preponderance of evidence supported the court's determination that the children's best interest warranted remaining in their current home, which was able to address the children's particularized needs. Additionally, mother's trial attorney did not provide deficient representation by failing to make a hearsay objection to the foster mother's testimony about the three-year-old's medical diagnoses and prognoses, and the agency did not fail to make a reasonable effort at reunification before moving for permanent custody. Judgments affirmed.