Dept. of Human Services v. F. A. F.

320 Or. App. 665

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: July 7, 2022
• Docket: A177501
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1). Submitted June 7, affirmed July 7, 2022

In the Matter of E. I. F., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, and E. I. F., Respondent, v. F. A. F., Appellant. Linn County Circuit Court 21JU01065; A177501 (Control) In the Matter of P. L. F., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, and P. L. F., Respondent, v. F. A. F., Appellant. Linn County Circuit Court 20JU03825; A177502 In the Matter of A. L. F., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, and 666 Dept. of Human Services v. F. A. F.

A. L. F., Respondent, v. F. A. F., Appellant. Linn County Circuit Court 20JU03824; A177503

Heidi M. Sternhagen, Judge pro tempore. Kristen G. Williams filed the briefs for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Michael A. Casper, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent Department of Human Services. George W. Kelly filed the brief for respondents E. I. F., P. L. F., and A. L. F. Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and Kamins, Judge. EGAN, J. Affirmed. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 320 Or App 665 (2022) 667

EGAN, J. In this consolidated appeal, father challenges the judgment terminating his parental rights to his three chil- dren, E, A, and P.1 Father assigns nine errors, all of which assert that the juvenile court’s record does not establish that there was clear and convincing evidence to support the ter- mination of his parental rights to his three children. ORS 419B.521(1). We conclude that clear and convincing evidence established that father had engaged in conduct character- ized by conditions that remain seriously detrimental to all three children. We also conclude that integration of the chil- dren into father’s home is improbable within a reasonable time due to conduct or conditions not likely to change, and that termination is in the best interests of each of the chil- dren. Accordingly, we affirm. We review the record from a judgment terminat- ing a parent’s parental rights de novo. ORS 419A.200(6); ORS 19.415(3). In reviewing the record, we must determine whether there is clear and convincing evidence to sustain the juvenile court’s judgment, that is, we must be persuaded by the evidence that it is highly probable that termination of father’s parental rights is in the best interests of his chil- dren. Dept. of Human Services v. M. P.-P., 272 Or App 502, 503, 356 P3d 1135 (2015). On appeal, father argues that the record was insuf- ficient, at the time of trial, to terminate his parental rights under ORS 419B.504. That statute authorizes termination of parental rights only when the department proves the par- ent is unfit, at the time of the trial, “by reason of conduct or condition seriously detrimental to the child or ward and integration of the child or ward into the home of the par- ent or parents is improbable within a reasonable time due to conduct or conditions not likely to change.” The inquiry under ORS 429B.504 sets forth a two-stage analysis. State ex rel SOSCF v. Stillman, 333 Or 135, 145, 36 P3d 490, 495- 96 (2001). At the first stage, we determine if the parent “has engaged in some conduct or was characterized by some con- dition” and, if so, then, whether the conduct or condition is 1 Mother’s parental rights were terminated before the trial terminating father’s parental rights, and, accordingly, mother is not a party to this case. 668 Dept. of Human Services v. F. A. F.

seriously detrimental to the child. Id. If the court concludes that there is a statutory ground for termination, the court must next determine whether it would be in the child’s best interest to terminate the parent-child relationship. Id. At both stages, the “facts on the basis of which the rights of the parents are terminated” must be proved by clear and con- vincing evidence. ORS 419B.521(1); Dept. of Human Services v. T. M. D., 365 Or 143, 158, 442 P3d 1100 (2019).

Beginning with the first stage of the unfitness inquiry, the juvenile court found that father was unfit under ORS 419B.504 based on a “lack of effort or failure to obtain and maintain a suitable or stable living situation for the child so that return of the child to the parent is possi- ble[;]” “[f]ailure to present a viable plan for the return of the child” to father’s care and custody; “[l]ack of effort to adjust the parent’s circumstances, conduct or conditions to make return of the child to the parent possible[;]” and “[f]ailure to effect a lasting adjustment after reasonable efforts.”

On de novo review, we conclude that the evidence is clear and convincing that father made little progress in the year prior to the termination trial and that he is unfit due to current conditions that, in combination, remain seriously detrimental to the children. See State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. F. W., 218 Or App 436, 469, 180 P3d 69, rev den, 344 Or 670 (2008) (evidence of current detrimental effects on the chil- dren is pertinent to parent’s unfitness, as well as to whether reunification is improbable within a reasonable time).

As to the second stage of the analysis, there was considerable testimony concerning the best interests of each of the children, including the testimony of mental health care providers, foster parents, case workers, and one of the children. All of the evidence indicates that the current foster placements for each of the children are interested in adoption rather than guardianship. The mental health professionals all testified that the children are in need of immediate stable placement. Father makes no arguments concerning the best interests of the children, and we con- clude on de novo review that it is in the best interests of the children to terminate the parent-child relationship. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 320 Or App 665 (2022) 669

Having reviewed the record de novo, we conclude that the court did not err in terminating father’s parental rights based on clear and convincing evidence that father had engaged in conduct and is characterized by conditions that remain seriously detrimental to all three children and that termination is in the best interests of each of the children. Affirmed.