Department of Human Services v. R. J. J.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Department of Human Services v. R. J. J.

391 P.3d 998, 284 Or. App. 615

DecidedMarch 29, 2017

Docket141162J; Petition Number 141162J01; A163080 (Control); 141163J; Petition Number 141163J01; A163081; 141162J; Petition Number 141162J02; A163082; 141163J; Petition Number 141163J02; A163083

StatusPublished

This text of 391 P.3d 998 (Department of Human Services v. R. J. J.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Department of Human Services v. R. J. J., 391 P.3d 998, 284 Or. App. 615 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Father appeals a judgment terminating his parental rights to his son and daughter, challenging the juvenile court’s determination that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate father’s parental rights. See ORS 419B.500 (termination of parental rights must be in the best interest of the ward). He contends that the juvenile court erred in determining that terminating his parental rights was in the children’s best interests because the children’s adoptive parents will likely sever contact between the children and their paternal grandmother, which would be detrimental to the children’s well-being.

A discussion of the facts in this case would not benefit the bench, the bar, or the public. On de novo review, ORS 19.415 (3) (a), we conclude that the juvenile court properly terminated father’s parental rights and termination is in the best interests of the children.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Father appeals a judgment terminating his parental rights to his son and daughter, challenging the juvenile court’s determination that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate father’s parental rights. See ORS 419B.500 (termination of parental rights must be in the best interest of the ward). He contends that the juvenile court erred in determining that terminating his parental rights was in the children’s best interests because the children’s adoptive parents will likely sever contact between the children and their paternal grandmother, which would be detrimental to the children’s well-being.

A discussion of the facts in this case would not benefit the bench, the bar, or the public. On de novo review, ORS 19.415 (3) (a), we conclude that the juvenile court properly terminated father’s parental rights and termination is in the best interests of the children.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

391 P.3d 998, 284 Or. App. 615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/department-of-human-services-v-r-j-j-orctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack