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

No. 588 November 8, 2023 115 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 A. M. G. B., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. M. G. D., Appellant. Lane County Circuit Court 22JU01359; A181163 R. Curtis Conover, Judge. Submitted October 11, 2023. Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Elena C. Stross, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Kristen M. Naito, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, and Joyce, Judge, and Jacquot, Judge. JOYCE, J. Affirmed. 116 Dept. of Human Services v. M. G. D. JOYCE, J. Father appeals from a judgment terminating his parental rights to his daughter, A. The juvenile court con- cluded that father was “unfit by reason of conduct or con- dition seriously detrimental to [A] and [that] integration of [A] into [father’s] home [was] improbable within a reason- able time due to conduct or conditions not likely to change.” ORS 419B.504.1 The court also concluded that termination of father’s rights was in A’s best interests. ORS 419B.500(1). Having reviewed the record de novo, we conclude, as did the juvenile court, that there is clear and convincing evidence that father is unfit under ORS 419B.504 and that termina- tion is in A’s best interests. Affirmed. 1 The juvenile court also terminated father’s parental rights due to neglect, under ORS 419B.506. Because we conclude that the court did not err in termi- nating father’s rights under ORS 419B.504, we do not need to reach the question whether the court erred in terminating father’s rights under ORS 419B.506.