Dept. of Human Services v. S. L. M.

332 Or. App. 814

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: May 30, 2024
• Docket: A182511
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

814 May 30, 2024 No. 366

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 K. R. C., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. S. L. M., Appellant. Josephine County Circuit Court 21JU00118; A182511 (Control) In the Matter of A. R. C., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. S. L. M., Appellant. Josephine County Circuit Court 21JU00120; A182512 In the Matter of J. R. C., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. S. L. M., Appellant. Josephine County Circuit Court 21JU04526; A182513 Nonprecedential Memo Op: 332 Or App 814 (2024) 815

In the Matter of M. I. C., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. S. L. M., Appellant. Josephine County Circuit Court 22JU03978; A182514 In the Matter of J. K. C., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. S. L. M., Appellant. Josephine County Circuit Court 22JU03979; A182515

Sarah E. McGlaughlin, Judge. Submitted April 22, 2024. Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Elena C. Stross, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Stacy M. Chaffin, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Egan, Judge, and Joyce, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. 816 Dept. of Human Services v. S. L. M.

PER CURIAM In this consolidated juvenile dependency case, mother appeals the juvenile court’s permanency judgments, which changed the permanency plans for her children from reuni- fication to adoption. Mother’s assignments of error present the same legal argument, which is that there was a “com- pelling 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). In particular, mother argues that, in order to preserve sibling attachments and relationships, guardianship was “better suited” than adop- tion. ORS 419B.498(2)(b)(B). We have considered mother’s arguments and reviewed the record. We conclude that the juvenile court did not err in changing the children’s permanency plans from reunification to adoption, and in determining that adoption, rather than guardianship, was in the children’s best inter- ests. 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 bur- den of proof.” (Emphasis in original.)). Affirmed.