State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Ward

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Ward

570 P.2d 103, 31 Or. App. 209, 1977 Ore. App. LEXIS 1955

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedOctober 17, 1977

DocketNo. 3476, CA 8208

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 570 P.2d 103 (State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Ward) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Ward, 570 P.2d 103, 31 Or. App. 209, 1977 Ore. App. LEXIS 1955 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

JOHNSON, J.

Appellant mother appeals from an order terminating her parental rights in two of her three children pursuant to ORS 419.523 et seq. The two children subject to this petition, boys age three and five years, were first made wards of the juvenile court when the mother requested foster care placement through Children’s Services Division in May of 1974. Following the temporary return to her custody of one of the boys, appellant signed a consent to adoption for both of the children in September of 1975, citing as her reason for such consent her inability to care for them. She subsequently revoked her consent, and a termination petition was filed in January of 1976.

Appellant contends that there is insufficient evidence to establish that she is "unfit by reason of conduct or condition seriously detrimental to the child[ren] and integration of the childtren] into [her] home * * * is improbable in the forseeable [sic] future due to conduct or conditions not likely to change * * *.” ORS 419.523(2); 419.525(2). On denovoreview, we conclude that the evidence in the record supports the order of termination. No useful purpose would be served by detailing the circumstances justifying termination. Suffice it to say that, while appellant clearly loves her children and believes that she could care for them with assistance, her intellectual and emotional deficiencies, which are unlikely to improve in the future, have caused her to live a transient life and seriously neglect her children. Their best interests would not be served by continuing them in wardship indefinitely in the dim hope that they may some day be returned to the biological mother whom they do not know.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JOHNSON, J.

Appellant mother appeals from an order terminating her parental rights in two of her three children pursuant to ORS 419.523 et seq. The two children subject to this petition, boys age three and five years, were first made wards of the juvenile court when the mother requested foster care placement through Children’s Services Division in May of 1974. Following the temporary return to her custody of one of the boys, appellant signed a consent to adoption for both of the children in September of 1975, citing as her reason for such consent her inability to care for them. She subsequently revoked her consent, and a termination petition was filed in January of 1976.

Appellant contends that there is insufficient evidence to establish that she is "unfit by reason of conduct or condition seriously detrimental to the child[ren] and integration of the childtren] into [her] home * * * is improbable in the forseeable [sic] future due to conduct or conditions not likely to change * * *.” ORS 419.523(2); 419.525(2). On denovoreview, we conclude that the evidence in the record supports the order of termination. No useful purpose would be served by detailing the circumstances justifying termination. Suffice it to say that, while appellant clearly loves her children and believes that she could care for them with assistance, her intellectual and emotional deficiencies, which are unlikely to improve in the future, have caused her to live a transient life and seriously neglect her children. Their best interests would not be served by continuing them in wardship indefinitely in the dim hope that they may some day be returned to the biological mother whom they do not know.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

570 P.2d 103, 31 Or. App. 209, 1977 Ore. App. LEXIS 1955, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-juvenile-department-v-ward-orctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack