Dept. of Human Services v. A. E. H.

337 Or. App. 489

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: January 23, 2025
• Docket: A184376
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

No. 47 January 23, 2025 489

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

In the Matter of H. L. H., aka H. H., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, and H. L. H., aka H. H., Respondent, v. A. E. H., aka A. H., aka A. E. H., Appellant. Morrow County Circuit Court 22JU04944; A184376 (Control) In the Matter of H. B. H., aka H. B. H., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, and H. B. H., aka H. B. H., Respondent v. A. E. H., aka A. H., aka A. E. H., Appellant. Morrow County Circuit Court 22JU04945; A184376 (Control), A184378

Robert W. Collins, Jr., Judge. 490 Dept. of Human Services v. A. E. H.

Submitted December 5, 2024. Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Holly Telerant, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant. George W. Kelly filed the brief for respondent children. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Greg Rios, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent Department of Human Services. Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, Powers, Judge, and Pagán, Judge. POWERS, J. Affirmed. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 337 Or App 489 (2025) 491

POWERS, J. Father appeals from a judgment terminating his parental rights to his two children, ages five and six at the time of the termination trial. In sixteen assignments of error, father argues that the juvenile court erred by ruling that he was unfit under ORS 419B.504; he does not chal- lenge the court’s best-interest determination. On de novo review as required by ORS 419A.200(6) and ORS 19.415(3) (a), we conclude that the court did not err in terminating father’s parental rights. Accordingly, we affirm. A juvenile court may terminate a parent’s paren- tal rights if the court determines that, at the time of trial, the parent is “unfit by reason of conduct or condition seri- ously detrimental to the child” and if integration of the child into the parent’s home is “improbable within a reasonable time due to conduct or conditions not likely to change.” ORS 419B.504. Termination must be in the child’s best interests. ORS 419B.500(1). In reviewing de novo, we examine the record “with fresh eyes” to determine whether the evidence developed before the juvenile court persuades us that those legal requirements for termination were met. See Dept. of Human Services v. T. L. M. H., 294 Or App 749, 750, 432 P3d 1186 (2018), rev den, 365 Or 556 (2019). In so doing, we gen- erally defer to the court’s demeanor-based credibility find- ings but not to findings that “appear to have been driven by a comparison of the testimony with the substance of other evidence.” Dept. of Human Services v. H. R. E., 297 Or App 247, 248 n 3, 441 P3d 726 (2019). After reviewing the entire record, including giving weight to the juvenile court’s demeanor-based credibility findings, we conclude that the court did not err by terminat- ing father’s parental rights. Father was in a domestically violent relationship with mother, who is not a party to this appeal, and he does not have a viable plan for the children’s return. Moreover, the record reflects that father has not shown accountability for his conduct, he does not recognize the impact of that conduct on his children, he has not made significant progress in addressing the conduct that resulted in the juvenile court taking jurisdiction, and there is expert testimony that the children have not bonded with father. 492 Dept. of Human Services v. A. E. H.

Thus, viewing the record as a whole, we conclude that con- duct or conditions existed at the time of the termination trial that are seriously detrimental to the children and that integration of the children into father’s home is improbable within a reasonable time. Finally, given that the children have been in substitute care for more than four years and that they need permanency as soon as possible, we are per- suaded that it is in the children’s best interests for father’s parental rights to be terminated. Affirmed.