Dept. of Human Services v. R. W. K. (A177619)

320 Or. App. 675

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: July 7, 2022
• Docket: A177619
• Status: Unpublished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This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1). Argued and submitted June 7, affirmed July 7, petitions for review denied October 20, 2022 (370 Or 404)

In the Matter of K. W. K., aka K. K., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERIVCES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. R. W. K. and K. K. D., Appellants. Deschutes County Circuit Court 18JU09635, 19JU06834; A177619 (Control), A177620 In the Matter of K. L. K., aka K. L. K., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERIVCES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. R. W. K. and K. K. D., Appellants. Deschutes County Circuit Court 18JU09639, 19JU06835; A177621, A177622

Alison M. Emerson, Judge. Ginger Fitch argued the cause for appellant K. K. D. Also on the briefs was Youth, Rights & Justice. Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Sarah Peterson, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant R. W. K. 676 Dept. of Human Services v. R. W. K. (A177619)

Stacy M. Chaffin, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General. Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and Kamins, Judge. KAMINS, J. Affirmed. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 320 Or App 675 (2022) 677

KAMINS, J. In this consolidated juvenile dependency case, par- ents appeal the juvenile court’s permanency judgments, challenging the denial of their request to change their two children’s permanency plans from adoption to guardianship. Mother assigns one error and father assigns eight, but each assignment presents the same legal argument, that there was a “compelling reason” to determine that proceeding with a petition to terminate parental rights would not be in the children’s “best interests.” ORS 419B.498(2)(b). More specif- ically, parents argue that guardianship was “better suited” than adoption to meet the children’s need to preserve their bond with mother. ORS 419B.498(2)(b)(B). Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the juvenile court did not err in determining that adoption, in lieu of guardianship, was in these children’s best interests. See Dept. of Human Services v. S. J. M., 364 Or 37, 53, 430 P3d 1021 (2018) (“[T]he party that wishes to show that the exceptions in ORS 419B.498(2) do apply bears the burden of proof.” (Emphasis in original.)). Affirmed.