Dept. of Human Services v. K. K. D.

321 Or. App. 655

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This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

Argued and submitted July 15, affirmed September 8, petition for review denied November 23, 2022 (370 Or 471)

In the Matter of K. W. K., a Child.

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent,

and K. W. K., Respondent,

v.

K. K. D., Appellant.

Deschutes County Circuit Court 21JU00303; A177630 (Control)

In the Matter of K. L. K., a Child.

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent,

and K. L. K., Respondent,

v.

K. K. D., Appellant.

Deschutes County Circuit Court 21JU00301; A177631

Alison M. Emerson, Judge. Ginger Fitch argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant.

656 Dept. of Human Services v. K. K. D.

Stacy M. Chaffin, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent Department of Human Services. On the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.

G. Aron Perez-Selsky filed the brief for respondents K. L. K. and K. W. K.

Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and Kamins, Judge.

EGAN, J. Affirmed.

Nonprecedential Memo Op: 321 Or App 655 (2022) 657

EGAN, J. In this consolidated appeal, mother challenges the judgment terminating her parental rights to her two children , K. W. K. and K. L. K. Mother assigns two errors, which both assert that it is not in the best interests of the children to sever the relationship between them and their mother. ORS 419B.498(2)(b). Specifically, mother argues that guardianship was “better suited,” as it would meet the children’s need for permanency while additionally meeting the children ’s need to preserve their relationship and bond with mother. ORS 419B.498(2)(b)(B).

“Protection of a child’s best interests includes attention to all the options for preserving whatever relationship is possible with that child’s parent, even if that parent is unfit. Department of Human Services (DHS) bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the child’s best interest.” Dept. of Human Services v. D. M. P., 317 Or App 529, 531, 504 P3d 1221 (2022). On de novo review, ORS 419A.200(6); ORS 19.415(3), we conclude that DHS did meet its burden and that the juvenile court did not err in determining that adoption, rather than guardianship, is in these children’s best interests.

Affirmed.