Dept. of Human Services v. S. T. ( 2024 )

No. 504 July 17, 2024 835
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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 M. L. T.,
a Child.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
S. T.,
Appellant.
Curry County Circuit Court
23JU02037; A183269 (Control)
In the Matter of S. A. Z. J.,
a Child.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
S. T.,
Appellant.
Curry County Circuit Court
23JU02039; A183271
Cynthia Lynnae Beaman, Judge.
Submitted June 14, 2024.
Aron Perez-Selsky 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 Tookey, Presiding Judge, Egan, Judge, and Kamins,
Judge.
836 Dept. of Human Services v. S. T.
PER CURIAM
Affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 333 Or App 835 (2024) 837
PER CURIAM
Mother appeals a judgment terminating her paren-
tal rights to her two children. On appeal, mother raises two
assignments of error, one with respect to each child, con-
tending that the juvenile court erred in determining that
termination of mother’s parental rights was in the children’s
best interests. We review de novo, ORS 19.415(3)(a), ORS
419A.200(6), and affirm.
A parent’s rights can be terminated only if the juve-
nile court determines that termination is in the best inter-
ests of the children. ORS 419B.500(1) (“The parental rights
of the parents of a ward may be terminated * * * only upon
a petition filed by the state or the ward for the purpose of
freeing the ward for adoption if the court finds it is in the
best interests of the ward[.]”). We do not presume that adop-
tion is in the best interests of the child in every case. Dept.
of Human Services v. T. M. D., 365 Or 143, 161-63, 166, 442
P3d 1100 (2019). Rather, we consider the needs and circum-
stances of the child to determine whether “the benefits to
the child of ending the child’s legal relationship with a par-
ent outweigh the risk of harm posed to the child by severing
that legal relationship.” Dept. of Human Services v. L. M. B.,
321 Or App 50, 53, 515 P3d 927 (2022).
Here, mother argues that termination is not in
the children’s best interests, because they are attached to
mother; mother was never violent toward the children and
was herself a victim of domestic violence; mother engaged
in services and has made progress toward being able to
safely parent the children; and long-term stability could be
achieved for the children through permanent guardianship
instead of through adoption.
Having reviewed the record, we agree with the juve-
nile court that termination of mother’s parental rights is in
the children’s best interests. In particular, we agree with
the juvenile court that neither child has a strong attach-
ment or bond to mother, and we are persuaded that the ben-
efits of termination for these children outweigh the risk of
harm.
Affirmed.