Dept. of Human Services v. W. C. B.

Opinion

No. 785 August 19, 2026 345

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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

a Child.

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent,

and B. B., Respondent,

v. W. C. B., Appellant.

Multnomah County Circuit Court 20JU01388; A187424

Patrick W. Henry, Judge. Argued and submitted June 17, 2026. Kyle Sessions Vazquez, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. Also on the briefs was Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, Oregon Public Defense Commission.

Shannon T. Reel, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent Department of Human Services. Also on the brief were Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, and Paul L. Smith, Solicitor General.

Erica Hayne Friedman argued the cause for respondent B. B. Also on the brief was Youth, Rights & Justice.

Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, Powers, Judge, and Leith, Senior Judge.

SHORR, P. J. Affirmed.

346 Dept. of Human Services v. W. C. B.

SHORR, P. J. Father appeals from a juvenile court judgment establishing a permanent guardianship pursuant to ORS 419B.365 for his son, B, who was eight years old at the time of the hearing.1 In eight assignments of error, he challenges the juvenile court’s determination that he was unfit,2 that it was in B’s best interests that father never have physical custody of him but that other parental rights and duties not be terminated, and the court’s establishment of the guardianship on those grounds. We affirm.

Father does not request that we exercise our discretion to review this case de novo, and we decline to do so. ORS 19.415(3)(b); ORAP 5.40(8)(c). Accordingly, we determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s disposition, “any rational trier of fact, accepting reasonable inferences and credibility choices, could have determined that clear and convincing evidence supported the findings and disposition reached by the [juvenile] court.” Dept. of Human Services v. D. W. M., 346 Or App 827, 832, 586 P3d 938 (2026) (internal quotation marks omitted).

A court shall grant a petition for permanent guardianship if it makes two findings by clear and convincing evidence. First, it must find that the “grounds cited in the petition are true.” ORS 419B.365(4)(a). That requires the petitioner, usually and in this case the Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS), to prove at least one statutory basis for termination of parental rights. See ORS 419B.365(2) (grounds for granting permanent guardianship are the same as those for termination of parental rights); Dept. of Human Services v. M. E. B.-T., 346 Or App 609, 621 n 4, 586 P3d 460 (2026) (explaining that parental rights may be terminated if ODHS establishes the existence of at 1 Mother agreed to the permanent guardianship and is not a party to this appeal.

2 Specifically, the juvenile court determined that father was unfit due to physical and emotional neglect of B, criminal conduct, a mental health condition, failure to learn or assume parenting skills and/or housekeeping skills sufficient to provide a safe and stable home, lack of effort to adjust the parent’s circumstances , conduct, or conditions to make return of the child to the parent possible within a reasonable time, and failure to effect lasting adjustment after reasonable efforts by available social agencies for such extended duration of time that it appears that no lasting adjustment can be effected.

Nonprecedential Memo Op: 352 Or App 345 (2026) 347

least one statutory ground for termination by clear and convincing evidence). Second, the court must also find that it is “in the best interest of the ward that the parent never have physical custody of the ward but that other parental rights and duties should not be terminated.” ORS 419B.365(4)(b).

In this case, ODHS alleged that father is unfit pursuant to ORS 419B.504 as grounds for the permanent guardianship. To determine that a parent is unfit, the court must find that “the parent has engaged in some conduct or is characterized by some condition” that “is ‘seriously detrimental ’ to the child.” State ex rel SOSCF v. Stillman, 333 Or 135, 145, 36 P3d 490 (2001). The court must also find that “integration of the child into the home of the parent or parents is improbable within a reasonable time due to conduct or conditions not likely to change.” Id. Both the “serious detriment” and “reasonable time” inquiries are child specific and require evidence “in psychological and developmental terms” regarding the particular child’s needs. Dept. of Human Services v. T. M. M., 248 Or App 352, 366, 273 P3d 322, rev den, 352 Or 170 (2012). Moreover, a parent’s fitness must be measured at the time of the hearing on the permanent guardianship petition. Stillman, 333 Or at 148-49.

In this case, we need not address every ground on which the juvenile court found that father was unfit. We conclude that the court did not err in ruling that father was unfit due to failure to learn or assume parenting skills sufficient to provide a safe and stable home for B.3 Due to the harmful impact of B’s early childhood experiences, B has diagnoses of PTSD and ADHD, a “very negative self-concept ,” and exhibits “severe behavioral and anxiety symptoms .” The court found that B is a high needs child who requires a caregiver who understands “his need to continue in therapeutic services and supports.” The court further found that father does not understand B’s therapeutic and 3 For the above-stated reason, we also need not address father’s contention that the juvenile court lacked authority to rule that father was unfit based on allegations, not in the jurisdictional petition and brought for the first time in the permanent guardianship petition, that father had a mental health condition, was engaged in physical or emotional neglect of B, and lacked effort or failed to adjust those alleged circumstances. ODHS alleged in both the jurisdictional petition and the permanent guardianship petition that father was unfit due to his lack of parenting skills sufficient to provide a safe and stable home for B.

348 Dept. of Human Services v. W. C. B.

support needs and did not have a plan to ensure that those needs would be met if B were returned to his care.

Although father has made commendable progress in some respects, the record contains sufficient clear and convincing evidence to support the juvenile court’s determinations . Father historically minimized B’s need for therapy, and at trial continued to demonstrate a lack of understanding into B’s diagnoses and therapeutic needs. Aside from one meeting with B’s therapist, father did not take further steps to engage with B’s therapy, despite being told the importance of doing so. At that meeting, father told the therapist that he did not think therapy was the best way to deal with problems, and that B “should just be a man” and deal with his feelings through physical activity, such as sports. At trial, father stated that he was “not sure” how important B’s therapy was, and had no plan for ensuring that B could continue therapy under his work schedule. Father had difficulty ensuring that B took his medication consistently, resulting in B’s dysregulation . There was further evidence that father has been unable to apply appropriate parenting skills during interactions with B. The evidence goes well beyond establishing merely that father may disagree with therapy. Instead, the record demonstrates that father has been unable to learn about B’s particularly high needs and adjust his conduct accordingly, and that deficiency continued up until trial. Under the circumstances and considering B’s particular needs, the juvenile court did not err in determining that father was unfit due to his failure to learn adequate parenting skills, that deficit was seriously detrimental to B, and that condition was unlikely to change within a reasonable time.

We also conclude that the record contains legally sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s best-interests determination. B has an acute need for permanency and without it, is at risk of not developing a safe attachment to a caregiver. B’s resource parents, who are the proposed guardians , provide him with structure and routine, engage with his therapy, and understand the importance of maintaining B’s relationship with his biological family.

For the foregoing reasons, the juvenile court did not err in establishing a permanent guardianship over B.

Affirmed.