Dept. of Human Services v. S. W. , 329 Or. App. 534 ( 2023 )

534 December 13, 2023 No. 655
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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 S. A. W.,
a Child.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
S. W.,
Appellant.
Malheur County Circuit Court
22JU02515; A181173 (Control)
In the Matter of S. S. W.,
a Child.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
S. W.,
Appellant.
Malheur County Circuit Court
22JU02517; A181174
Erin K. Landis, Judge.
Submitted November 15, 2023.
Aron Perez-Selsky and Michael J. Wallace filed the brief
for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Shannon T. Reel, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, and Joyce, Judge, and
Jacquot, Judge.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 329 Or App 534 (2023) 535
AOYAGI, P. J.
Affirmed.
536 Dept. of Human Services v. S. W.
AOYAGI, P. J.
Father appeals a judgment terminating his paren-
tal rights to two children, H, born August 2014, and K,
born March 2016. The children have been in care since
June 2020. The judgment terminating father’s paren-
tal rights was entered in March 2023 and amended in
May 2023. On appeal, in two assignments of error, father
challenges the termination of his parental rights, arguing
that the juvenile court erred in finding that termination
was in the children’s best interests.
One of the requirements that must be met before a
court may terminate parental rights—and the only require-
ment at issue in this appeal—is that termination must be
found to be in the child’s best interests. ORS 419B.500(1)
(“The parental rights of the parents of a ward may be ter-
minated * * * only upon a petition filed * * * 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
adoption is the best outcome for every child who lacks fit
parents. Dept. of Human Services v. T. M. D., 365 Or 143,
161, 442 P3d 1100 (2019). Rather, the court must consider
the needs and circumstances of the individual child. Id. at
163, 166. Termination is appropriate only if the court con-
cludes that “the benefits to the child of ending the child’s
legal relationship with a parent 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).
We review a judgment terminating parental rights
de novo. ORS 419A.200(6); ORS 19.415(3). Thus, we must
determine for ourselves whether it is in the children’s best
interests to terminate father’s parental rights. Dept. of
Human Services v. T. L. M. H., 294 Or App 749, 750, 432 P3d
1186 (2018), rev den, 365 Or 556 (2019).
Father argues that termination is not in the chil-
dren’s best interests, because the children are emotionally
bonded to him. He also argues that the evidence is insuffi-
cient to establish that the children’s permanency needs can-
not be met without terminating his parental rights. Having
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 329 Or App 534 (2023) 537
reviewed the record, we agree with the juvenile court that,
at this point, the termination of father’s parental rights is
in H’s and K’s best interests. Although there is evidence of
an emotional bond, there is also evidence that that bond is
not necessarily healthy for the children. We are also par-
ticularly persuaded by the evidence regarding these chil-
dren’s needs for permanency after three years in temporary
care, the lack of any identified guardianship resource for
them, and the significant risk of parental interference with
a guardianship even if a guardian could be identified. On
the whole, being freed for adoption is in H’s and K’s best
interests. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments terminat-
ing father’s rights.
Affirmed.