Dept. of Human Services v. A. R. R.

319 Or. App. 262

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: April 20, 2022
• Docket: A177036
• Status: Published

Opinion

Submitted March 30, affirmed April 20, petition for review denied July 28, 2022 (370 Or 197)

In the Matter of M. R. R., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. A. R. R., Appellant. Curry County Circuit Court 20JU04636; A177036 (Control) In the Matter of I. M. R., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. A. R. R., Appellant. Curry County Circuit Court 20JU04638; A177037 In the Matter of A. J. R., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. A. R. R., Appellant. Curry County Circuit Court 20JU04640; A177038 In the Matter of A. T. R., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Cite as 319 Or App 262 (2022) 263

A. R. R., Appellant. Curry County Circuit Court 20JU04642; A177039 508 P3d 1000

Cynthia Lynnae Beaman, Judge. George W. Kelly 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 Aoyagi, Judge, and Joyce, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. 264 Dept. of Human Services v. A. R. R.

PER CURIAM Father appeals from a judgment terminating his parental rights to his children. We reject father’s first and second assignments of error without discussion. Parental rights may be terminated “if the court finds that the parent or parents are unfit by reason of conduct or condition seri- ously detrimental to the child or ward and integration of the child or ward into the home of the parent or parents is improbable within a reasonable time due to conduct or condi- tions 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) (court’s best interest “deter- mination is focused on the needs of the child”). On de novo review, having reviewed the record, we conclude, as did the trial court, that termination of father’s parental rights is in the children’s best interest. Affirmed.