DHS v. M.T.P.

“DHS is required to initiate a petition to terminate parental rights under these circumstances unless ‘there is a compelling reason, which is documented in the case plan, for determining that filing such a petition would not be in the best interests of the child.’” ORS 419B.498(2)(b).

Father appealed from a judgment in which the juvenile court changed the permanency plan for his son from reunification to adoption. Father assigned error to the court’s determination that there were no compelling reasons to determine that filling a petition to terminate parental rights would not be in the best interest of the child. On appeal, Father argued that DHS “failed to prove that there did not exist a compelling reason to forgo a plan of adoption,” and that another permanency plan, such as guardianship, would better suit to his son’s needs. In response, DHS argued that guardianship is not a compelling reason to forgo a termination petition due to concerns about the suitability of the guardian that the Father had suggested. Further, DHS argued that adoption was the most stable option which would provide the child with the opportunity to bond with a long-term caregiver. “DHS is required to initiate a petition to terminate parental rights under these circumstances unless ‘there is a compelling reason, which is documented in the case plan, for determining that filing such a petition would not be in the best interests of the child.’” ORS 419B.498(2)(b). The Court of Appeals found that the trial court did not err and held that there was sufficient evidence from which the juvenile court could conclude that there was no “compelling reason” that a termination petition was not in the son’s best interests. Affirmed.