Dept. of Human Services v. M. L. M. , 307 Or. App. 656 ( 2020 )

656
Argued and submitted July 22, affirmed November 25, 2020
In the Matter of M. M. O. M.,
a Child.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
M. L. M., Jr.,
Appellant.
Benton County Circuit Court
18JU09565; A173513 (Control)
In the Matter of E. J. M.,
a Child,
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
M. L. M., Jr.,
Appellant.
Benton County Circuit Court
18JU09568; A173514
477 P3d 1232
Matthew J. Donohue, Judge.
George W. Kelly argued the cause and filed the brief for
appellant.
Shannon T. Reel, Assistant Attorney General, argued
the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F.
Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General.
Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and
Powers, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Affirmed.
Cite as 307 Or App 656 (2020) 657
PER CURIAM
Father appeals from a judgment terminating his
parental rights to his children, M and E, on the ground
that he was unfit, ORS 419B.504, and on the ground that
he neglected M and E, ORS 419B.506. The neglect statute
provides, in part:
“The rights of the parent or parents may be terminated
as provided in ORS 419B.500 if the court finds that the
parent or parents have failed or neglected without rea-
sonable and lawful cause to provide for the basic physical
and psychological needs of the child or ward for six months
prior to the filing of a petition. In determining such failure
or neglect, the court shall disregard any incidental or min-
imal expressions of concern or support and shall consider
but is not limited to one or more of the following:
“* * * * *
“(2) Failure to maintain regular visitation or other
contact with the child or ward that was designed and
implemented in a plan to reunite the child or ward with
the parent.”
ORS 419B.506. On de novo review, we conclude, after exam-
ining the evidence in the record, that there is clear and con-
vincing evidence that father’s rights should be terminated
on the basis of neglect under ORS 419B.506(2).1 Because we
affirm on the basis of neglect under ORS 419B.506, we do
not consider whether the juvenile court erred by also termi-
nating father’s parental rights on the ground that he was
unfit, ORS 419B.504.
An in-depth discussion of the facts in this case would
not benefit the bench, the bar, or the public. Father does not
dispute that he did not visit or contact either child during
the six months preceding the filing of the petition for termi-
nation; rather, father asserts that the juvenile court’s “rea-
sonable and lawful cause” analysis was flawed in three spe-
cific respects. We conclude that the record contains clear and
convincing evidence that father’s failure to maintain regular
visits or contact was without reasonable and lawful cause.
1
We also reject without discussion father’s challenge to the juvenile court’s
reliance on hearsay evidence that the court previously had ruled inadmissible.
658 Dept. of Human Services v. M. L. M.
To the extent that father asserts that his need to
travel a significant distance to attend visitation, his work
schedule, and his financial difficulties provided reasonable
and lawful cause, we reject his argument. DHS presented
evidence that they encouraged father to visit M and E
and attempted to help facilitate visits. DHS also provided
father with gas vouchers to help with transportation costs
and attempted to accommodate visits around father’s work
schedule. Although we acknowledge that father’s circum-
stances presented challenges for him to maintain regular
visits, those reasons alone do not explain why father never
attempted to contact M and E during the six months pre-
ceding the termination petition. Given DHS’s efforts, we are
unpersuaded that father’s reasons for not visiting M and E
constitute a reasonable and lawful cause.
Finally, father does not challenge the juvenile
court’s determination that termination of his parental rights
was in children’s best interest, and we conclude that DHS
proved by clear and convincing evidence that termination of
his parental rights is in children’s best interest so that they
can be freed for adoption. Accordingly, the juvenile court did
not err in terminating father’s parental rights on the basis
of neglect, ORS 419B.506(2).
Affirmed.