Dept. of Human Services v. V. A. W.

329 Or. App. 530

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: December 13, 2023
• Docket: A181169
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

530 December 13, 2023 No. 654

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 S. S. W., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. V. A. W., aka V. A. M., Appellant. Malheur County Circuit Court 22JU02518; A181169 (Control) In the Matter of S. A. W., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. V. A. W., aka V. A. M., Appellant. Malheur County Circuit Court 22JU02516; A181168

Erin K. Landis, Judge. Submitted October 11, 2023. George W. Kelly filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Shannon T. Reel, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, and Joyce, Judge, and Jacquot, Judge. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 329 Or App 530 (2023) 531

AOYAGI, P. J. Affirmed. 532 Dept. of Human Services v. V. A. W.

AOYAGI, P. J. Mother appeals a judgment terminating her paren- tal rights to two children, H, born August 2014, and K, born March 2016. The children have been in care since June 2020. The judgment terminating mother’s paren- tal rights was entered in March 2023 and amended in May 2023. On appeal, in her sole assignment of error, mother challenges the termination of her parental rights, arguing that the juvenile court erred in finding that termination was in the children’s best interests. One of the requirements that must be met before a court may terminate parental rights—and the only require- ment at issue in this appeal—is that termination must be found to be in the child’s best interests. ORS 419B.500(1) (“The parental rights of the parents of a ward may be ter- minated * * * only upon a petition filed * * * for the purpose of freeing the ward for adoption if the court finds it is in the best interests of the ward * * *.”). We do not presume that adoption is the best outcome for every child who lacks fit parents. Dept. of Human Services v. T. M. D., 365 Or 143, 161, 442 P3d 1100 (2019). Rather, the court must consider the needs and circumstances of the individual child. Id. at 163, 166. Termination is appropriate only if the court con- cludes that “the benefits to the child of ending the child’s legal relationship with a parent outweigh the risk of harm posed to the child by severing that legal relationship.” Dept. of Human Services v. L. M. B., 321 Or App 50, 53, 515 P3d 927 (2022). We review a judgment terminating parental rights de novo. ORS 419A.200(6); ORS 19.415(3). Thus, we must determine for ourselves whether it is in the children’s best interests to terminate mother’s parental rights. Dept. of Human Services v. T. L. M. H., 294 Or App 749, 750, 432 P3d 1186 (2018), rev den, 365 Or 556 (2019). Mother argues that termination is not in the chil- dren’s best interests because the children are bonded to her, have good visits with her, and have at times expressed a desire to return to her care. She argues that “[t]here is noth- ing negative and much that would be positive about allowing Nonprecedential Memo Op: 329 Or App 530 (2023) 533

mother to remain legally connected to her children.” Having reviewed the record, we agree with the juvenile court that, at this point, the termination of mother’s parental rights is in H’s and K’s best interests. We are particularly persuaded by the evidence regarding these children’s needs for perma- nency after three years in temporary care, the lack of any identified guardianship resource for them, and the signifi- cant risk of parental interference with a guardianship even if a guardian could be identified. On the whole, being freed for adoption is in H’s and K’s best interests. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments terminating mother’s rights. Affirmed.