Dept. of Human Services v. S. M. G. ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                                    170
    This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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 on June 28, affirmed July 19, petition for review denied
    October 19, 2023 (
    371 Or 509
    )
    In the Matter of A. S. G.,
    a Child.
    DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
    Petitioner-Respondent,
    and
    A. S. G.,
    Respondent,
    v.
    S. M. G.
    Appellant.
    Clatsop County Circuit Court
    21JU04670; A179557
    Beau V. Peterson, Judge.
    Aron Perez-Selsky and Michael J. Wallace filed the brief
    for appellant.
    Ginger Fitch and Youth, Rights & Justice filed the brief
    for respondent child.
    Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
    Solicitor General, and Shannon T. Reel, Assistant Attorney
    General, filed the brief for respondent Dept. of Human
    Services.
    Before Egan, Presiding Judge, and Lagesen, Chief Judge,
    and Kamins, Judge.
    LAGESEN, C. J.
    Affirmed.
    Nonprecedential Memo Op: 
    327 Or App 170
     (2023)                171
    LAGESEN, C. J.
    Mother appeals a judgment terminating her paren-
    tal rights to one child, A. The juvenile court terminated
    mother’s parental rights to A upon finding that mother was
    unfit on the following grounds, among others:
    “a) Addictive or habitual use of intoxicating liquors,
    cannabis or controlled substances to the extent that paren-
    tal ability has been substantially impaired.
    “b) Lack of effort or failure to obtain and maintain
    a suitable or stable living situation for the child so that
    return of the child to the parent is possible.
    “* * * * *
    “f) Lack of effort to adjust the parent’s circumstances,
    conduct or conditions to make return of the child to the
    parent possible.
    “g) Failure to effect a lasting adjustment after reason-
    able efforts by available social agencies for such extended
    duration of time that it appears reasonable that no lasting
    adjustment can be effected.”
    On appeal, mother contends that the juvenile court erred
    when it found that she was unfit on any basis. We affirm.
    We review de novo the decision to terminate moth-
    er’s parental rights. ORS 19.415(3)(a). Pursuant to ORS
    419B.504, termination is proper if the court finds, by clear
    and convincing evidence, that:
    “ ‘[T]he parent or parents are 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
    or parents is improbable within a reasonable time due to
    conduct or conditions not likely to change.’ ”
    Dept. of Human Services v. K. M. M., 
    260 Or App 34
    , 44,
    316 P3d 379 (2013), rev den, 
    354 Or 837
     (2014). That statute
    poses a two-part test for assessing whether a parent is unfit.
    State ex rel SOSCF v. Stillman, 
    333 Or 135
    , 145, 36 P3d
    490 (2001). The two-part inquiry is: (1) whether mother “has
    engaged in some conduct or is characterized by some condi-
    tion”; and (2) whether “the conduct or condition is ‘seriously
    detrimental’ to the child.” 
    Id.
     When seeking termination
    172                      Dept. of Human Services v. S. M. G.
    under ORS 419B.504, the Department of Human Services
    (DHS), has the burden of proving, by clear and convincing
    evidence, that mother is unfit. Dept. of Human Services v.
    C. L. C., 
    247 Or App 445
    , 461, 268 P3d 808 (2011). Whether
    or not a parent is fit is measured at the time of the termina-
    tion proceeding. State ex rel Dept. of Human Services v. C. R.,
    
    340 Or 436
    , 448-49, 134 P3d 940 (2006). We consider all
    proven conduct or conditions in combination when evaluat-
    ing a parent’s unfitness. Dept. of Human Services v. C. M. K.,
    
    270 Or App 1
    , 18, 346 P3d 1254, rev den, 
    357 Or 324
    , cert
    den, 
    577 US 944
     (2015).
    Having considered the entirety of the evidentiary
    record, we conclude, as did the juvenile court, that there is
    clear and convincing evidence that mother is unfit on the
    grounds (a), (b), (f), and (g), identified above. Despite mother’s
    recent efforts, she has made insufficient progress in address-
    ing her ongoing substance abuse issues. Furthermore, the
    record demonstrates that mother has no plan for A’s reinte-
    gration into her care, and persuades us that, despite reason-
    able efforts by DHS, mother has made no progress toward
    securing a safe, stable living situation for A.
    Because we conclude that the record establishes
    that mother is unfit on the above grounds, we need not and
    do not address other grounds for termination found by the
    juvenile court. Dept. of Human Services v. B. J. B., 
    242 Or App 534
    , 536, 256 P3d 167 (2011).
    Affirmed.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A179557

Judges: Lagesen

Filed Date: 7/19/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2024