Dept. of Human Services v. E. M. D. ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                                    526
    This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
    pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
    except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
    Submitted December 2, affirmed December 29, 2022, petition for review denied
    April 20, 2023 (
    371 Or 21
    )
    In the Matter of A. L. D.,
    a Child.
    DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
    Petitioner-Respondent,
    v.
    E. M. D.,
    Appellant.
    Douglas County Circuit Court
    19JU09290; A178947
    George William Ambrosini, Judge.
    Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate
    Section, and Holly Telerant, Deputy Public Defender, Office
    of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
    Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
    Solicitor General, and Emily N. Snook, Assistant Attorney
    General, filed the brief for respondent.
    Before James, Presiding Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge, and
    Joyce, Judge.
    JOYCE, J.
    Affirmed.
    Nonprecedential Memo Op: 
    323 Or App 526
     (2022)            527
    JOYCE, J.
    Father appeals from a judgment terminating his
    parental rights to his daughter, A. As relevant here, ter-
    mination of parental rights is appropriate if the court finds
    that the parent is “unfit by reason of conduct or condition
    seriously detrimental to the child or ward and integration of
    the child or ward into the home of the parent * * * is improb-
    able within a reasonable time due to conduct or conditions
    not likely to change,” ORS 419B.504, and “if the court finds
    [that termination] is in the best interests of the ward,” ORS
    419B.500(1). The juvenile court here concluded that father
    was unfit because (1) he had engaged in criminal conduct
    that impaired his ability to care for A, (2) his incarcera-
    tion impaired his availability to care for her, and (3) he had
    failed to present a viable plan for A’s return to his care. ORS
    419B.504. The court also concluded that father’s conduct
    was seriously detrimental to A and that termination of his
    rights was in A’s best interests. ORS 419B.500(1). Having
    reviewed the record de novo, we reach the same conclusion.
    Affirmed.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A178947

Judges: Joyce

Filed Date: 12/29/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/10/2024