Dept. of Human Services v. I. D.

342 Or. App. 348

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: July 30, 2025
• Docket: A186516
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

348 July 30, 2025 No. 696

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 D. D. R., aka D. R. R., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, and D. D. R., aka D. R. R., Respondent, v. I. D., Appellant. Marion County Circuit Court 24JU04172; A186516

Courtland Geyer, Judge. Submitted June 18, 2025. George W. Kelly filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jon Zunkel-deCoursey, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent Department of Human Services. G. Aron Perez-Selsky filed the brief for respondent child. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Joyce, Judge. JOYCE, J. Affirmed. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 342 Or App 348 (2025) 349

JOYCE, J. Father appeals from a judgment terminating his parental rights to his daughter, D. On appeal, he contends that the juvenile court erred in concluding that he engaged in extreme conduct, was unfit, and neglected D. See ORS 419B.502 (allowing for termination of parental rights if a parent engages in extreme conduct toward any child); ORS 419B.504 (allowing for termination of parental rights if a parent is unfit); ORS 419B.506 (allowing for termination of parental rights if a parent neglects a child). We affirm. Having reviewed the record de novo, ORS 19.415(3)(a), the evidence shows that father sexually abused D’s older sib- ling, M, as well as D. In particular, we are persuaded by the juvenile court’s credibility findings with respect to M’s descrip- tion of father’s sexual abuse of her and witnessing the sexual abuse of D. See State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. G. P., 131 Or App 313, 319, 884 P2d 885 (1994) (recognizing on de novo review that “in a rape or sexual abuse case, the trial court’s oppor- tunity to observe the demeanor of the [accused] and the com- plainant is important”). The juvenile court therefore did not err by terminating father’s rights under both ORS 419B.502, which allows for termination of parental rights where a par- ent engages in “[r]ape, sodomy[,] or sex abuse of any child by the parent,” and ORS 419B.504, which permits termination where a parent engages in conduct towards any child that is of an “abusive, cruel[,] or sexual nature.” That conclusion obviates the need to determine whether the juvenile court correctly terminated his rights because he neglected D. Affirmed.