Dept. of Human Services v. A. B.

504 P.3d 710, 317 Or. App. 813

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: February 24, 2022
• Docket: A176717
• Status: Published

Opinion

Submitted January 27, affirmed February 24, 2022

In the Matter of S.-R. G. B., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. A. B., Appellant. Washington County Circuit Court 20JU05244; A176717 (Control) In the Matter of L. F. A. C., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. A. B., Appellant. Washington County Circuit Court 20JU05245; A176718 504 P3d 710

Andrew Erwin, Judge. Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Tiffany Keast, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jeff J. Payne, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before James, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and Kamins, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. 814 Dept. of Human Services v. A. B.

PER CURIAM Mother challenges the juvenile court judgment ter- minating her parental rights to her two children, S and L. Parental rights may be terminated “if the court finds that the parent or parents are unfit by reason of conduct or con- dition seriously detrimental to the child or ward and inte- gration of the child or ward into the home of the parent or parents is improbable within a reasonable time due to con- duct or conditions not likely to change,” ORS 419B.504, and “if the court finds [that termination] is in the best interest of the ward,” ORS 419B.500. Ultimately, the “assessment of a child’s best interest must be child-centered,” taking into consideration the unique circumstances of each case. Dept. of Human Services v. T. M. D., 365 Or 143, 166, 442 P3d 1100 (2019); see also Dept. of Human Services v. J. S. E. S., 315 Or App 242, 244, 501 P3d 556 (2021), rev den, 369 Or 209 (2022) (court’s best interest “determination is focused on the needs of the child”). Exercising de novo review, and having considered the entirety of the evidentiary record, we conclude, as did the trial court, that there is clear and convincing evidence that mother is currently unfit and that termination of mother’s parental rights to S and L is in the children’s best interests. Affirmed.