Dept. of Human Services v. J. N. A. ( 2022 )

400
Submitted May 9, affirmed June 15, 2022
In the Matter of J. J. A.,
a Child.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
J. N. A.,
Appellant.
Benton County Circuit Court
20JU06800; A177328
511 P3d 90
Matthew J. Donohue, Judge.
Erica Hayne Friedman and Youth, Rights & Justice filed
the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Jeff J. Payne, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Powers, Presiding Judge, and Lagesen, Chief Judge,
and Hellman, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Affirmed.
Cite as 320 Or App 400 (2022) 401
PER CURIAM
Father appeals from a judgment terminating his
parental rights to J, who was almost two years old at the
time of the trial, challenging the juvenile court’s determina-
tion that he was an unfit parent within the meaning of ORS
419B.504 and that it was in the best interests of the child
to terminate father’s parental rights under ORS 419B.500.
He contends that the juvenile court erred in determin-
ing that he was unfit because the Department of Human
Services (DHS) did not provide sufficient evidence to sat-
isfy the requirements for termination under ORS 419B.504.
Specifically, father argues that DHS failed to prove that
(1) he was engaged in criminal conduct that impaired his
ability to parent; (2) he failed to learn the parenting skills
sufficient to safely parent J, or that any lack of skills would
be seriously detrimental to J; (3) his living situation was
seriously detrimental to J; (4) he lacked a viable plan for
J’s return; (5) he demonstrated a lack of effort to adjust his
circumstances or that he failed to make a lasting adjust-
ment after reasonable efforts by DHS; and (6) J could not be
integrated into his home within a reasonable time. Father
further argues that the juvenile court erred in concluding
that terminating his parental rights was in J’s best inter-
est because DHS did not identify particularized evidence or
“factual circumstances demonstrating that adoption in par-
ticular would meet [J]’s permanency needs.”
A discussion of the facts in this case would not ben-
efit the bench, the bar, or the public. On de novo review,
ORS 19.415(3)(a), we are persuaded by clear and convincing
evidence that the legal standard for terminating father’s
parental rights is met, and that it is in J’s best interests
that father’s parental rights be terminated.
Affirmed.