Dept. of Human Services v. D. T. P. , 317 Or. App. 810 ( 2022 )

810
Submitted January 27, affirmed February 24, petition for review denied
June 23, 2022 (369 Or 855)
In the Matter of M. D.-P.,
aka M. D., aka M. Z. D.-P., a Child.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
D. T. P., JR.,
aka D. L., aka D. P.,
Appellant.
Multnomah County Circuit Court
20JU02197;
Petition Number T2020088;
A176670 (Control)
In the Matter of I. D.,
a Child.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
D. T. P., JR.,
aka D. L., aka D. P.,
Appellant.
Multnomah County Circuit Court
20JU02199;
Petition Number T2020090;
A176671
505 P3d 1098
Beth A. Allen, Judge.
Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate
Section, and Holly Telerant, Deputy Public Defender, Office
of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Inge D. Wells, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Cite as 317 Or App 810 (2022) 811
Before James, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and
Kamins, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Affirmed.
812 Dept. of Human Services v. D. T. P.
PER CURIAM
Father appeals a judgment terminating his paren-
tal rights to his children, I and M. Father will be incarcer-
ated until 2024 and does not contest that he is currently
unfit to parent the children. Rather, he contends that ter-
mination of his parental rights is not in the children’s best
interest because a permanent guardianship could provide
them the necessary permanency.
Parental rights may be terminated “if the court
finds that the parent or parents are unfit by reason of con-
duct or condition seriously detrimental to the child or ward
and integration of the child or ward into the home of the par-
ent or parents is improbable within a reasonable time due to
conduct or conditions not likely to change,” ORS 419B.504,
and “if the court finds [that termination] is in the best inter-
est of the ward,” ORS 419B.500. Ultimately, the “assessment
of a child’s best interest must be child-centered,” taking into
consideration the unique circumstances of each case. Dept.
of Human Services v. T. M. D., 365 Or 143, 166, 442 P3d 1100
(2019); see also Dept. of Human Services v. J. S. E. S., 315 Or
App 242, 244, 501 P3d 556 (2021), rev den, 369 Or 209 (2022)
(court’s best interest “determination is focused on the needs
of the child”).
On de novo review, we conclude, as did the trial
court, that termination of parental rights is in the children’s
best interest. The children’s current caretaker where they
had lived for the preceding three years before trial was des-
ignated as their adoptive placement, and she was not willing
to agree to a permanent guardianship. Under the circum-
stances of this case, it was in the children’s best interest to
terminate parental rights to allow the children to maintain
their stability and permanency with their current caretaker
who was also willing to agree to post-adoption contact.
Affirmed.