{¶ 2} Father filed this appeal from the trial court's judgment terminating his parental rights. He argues that the trial court's judgment was not supported by the weight of the evidence. Specifically, Father argues that the trial court terminated his parental rights without considering the alternative of placing the child with her paternal aunt and without *2 providing him with enough time to work toward reunification with his child. This Court affirms.
{¶ 4} On October 7, 2007, LCCS moved for permanent custody of A.W. Following a hearing on the motion, the trial court found that A.W. could not be returned to either parent's home within a reasonable time or should not be returned to either home and that permanent custody was in her best interest. Father appeals and raises one assignment of error.
{¶ 6} The trial court found that the first prong of the permanent custody test was satisfied because A.W. could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent. See R.C.
{¶ 7} LCCS presented evidence that Father had abandoned A.W. and that he otherwise demonstrated a lack of commitment to her. A presumption of abandonment arises under R.C.
{¶ 8} Moreover, prior to the commencement of this case, Father had demonstrated a lack of commitment to A.W. by having little contact with her throughout most of her life. During 2000, Father visited A.W. and even cared for her for approximately one month while her mother was incarcerated, but he lost contact with A.W. shortly afterward because he was convicted and incarcerated for six months. After his release from prison, Father moved to Florida to look for work and had no contact with A.W. for another two years.
{¶ 9} The trial court also had ample evidence before it that Father's repeated incarcerations prevented him from providing care for A.W. Father has been convicted of various criminal offenses during his adult life and has served two periods of incarceration during A.W.'s lifetime. On June 8, 2004, Father was convicted of attempted burglary and aggravated menacing. He was incarcerated for a six-month period and completely lost contact with A.W. and her mother. On July 20, 2007, during the pendency of this case, Father was convicted of attempted robbery, attempted burglary, intimidation, and criminal damaging. He was still serving a one-year period of incarceration at the time of the permanent custody hearing.
{¶ 10} The trial court reasonably found that that LCCS had presented clear and convincing evidence to establish the existence of the circumstances enumerated in R.C.
{¶ 11} Father contends that, rather than finding that A.W. could not be placed in his care within a reasonable time, the trial court instead should have granted an extension of temporary custody to allow him more time to work toward reunification with A.W. Despite Father's suggestion to the contrary, the trial court had no discretion to make an alternate finding. R.C.
{¶ 12} After the trial court found that A.W. could not be placed with either parent due to one or more of the factors under R.C.
*6"(1) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's parents, siblings, relatives, foster caregivers and out-of-home providers, and any 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, with due regard for the maturity of the child;
"(3) 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 ending on or after March 18, 1999;
"(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 in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this section apply in relation to the parents and child." R.C.
2151.414 (D)(1)-(5).
{¶ 13} This Court will discuss the first and fifth best interest factors together because they are closely related. As explained above, the trial court found that the circumstances set forth in R.C.
{¶ 14} The trial court correctly found that Father had abandoned A.W. and that his interaction with her throughout her eight-year life had been sporadic and limited. He had little contact with her for the several years before this case began and had only one visit with her during the one-year duration of this case. Although Father was incarcerated repeatedly, which affected his ability to have direct contact with her, he did not send letters or make calls to her while incarcerated. Father and A.W. essentially had no parent-child relationship.
{¶ 15} On the other hand, A.W. had been living in the same foster home since the beginning of this case and her two half-siblings had been living there with her for most of that time. The agency had placed all three children there in an effort to keep A.W. and her half-siblings together. The evidence demonstrated that A.W. was bonded to the foster parents and her two half-siblings and the foster parents had expressed a desire to adopt all three children.
{¶ 16} A.W., who was eight years old at the time of the permanent custody hearing, had expressed her desire to stay in the home of the foster family. The trial court further relied on the recommendation of the guardian ad litem, noting that the guardian ad litem opined that permanent custody was in the best interest of A.W. *7
{¶ 17} The trial court further found that A.W. was in need of a legally secure permanent placement that could only be achieved by placing A.W. in the permanent custody of LCCS. Neither parent was able to provide A.W. with a permanent home at that time and LCCS had been unable to locate any suitable relatives.
{¶ 18} Although Father maintains that LCCS failed to rule out his sister Denise as a possible permanent placement for A.W., the record demonstrates otherwise. LCCS presented evidence that it investigated Father's sister Denise, and even conducted a home study, but found that she could not provide a suitable permanent placement for A.W. In addition to concerns that A.W. did not really know Denise and that Denise had been investigated twice due to allegations of physical abuse of other children, LCCS wanted to keep A.W. together with her two half-siblings, who are not related to Denise. A.W. is strongly bonded to her half-siblings and LCCS had been able to place the three children together in the same foster home. The foster parents intended to adopt all three children and keep them together. Where the strongest bond the child has had is with her siblings, separating them would generally not be in their best interest. In re A.C., 9th Dist. Nos. 02CA0053, 02CA0054, 02CA0055,
{¶ 19} Given the evidence before the trial court, it reasonably found that permanent custody was in A.W.'s best interest. The assignment of error is overruled. *8
Judgment affirmed.
The Court finds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Lorain, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App. R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App. R. 22(E). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App. R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
CARR, J. MOORE, P. J. CONCUR.