DHS v. T.L.B.

Even if DHS satisfies the statutory “clear and convincing” evidence required to terminate a parent’s rights, “the court may not terminate a parent’s rights unless clear and convincing evidence also establishes that termination is in the child’s best interests.” ORS 419B.500; State ex rel SOSCF v. Stillman, 333 Or 135, 145-146, 36 P3d 490 (2001). The evidence is said to be “clear and convincing” when “it makes the existence of a fact highly probable or when it is of extraordinary persuasiveness.” Dept. of Human Services v. R.K., 271 Or App 83, 88, 351 P3d 68, rev den, 357 Or 640 (2015).

Mother appealed from a judgment by the juvenile court that terminated her parental rights to her two-year-old daughter. Mother assigned error to the juvenile court’s determination that she was an unfit parent and as such, it was in the best interest of the child to terminate her parental rights. On appeal, Mother argued that DHS had not proved by “clear and convincing” evidence that she was an unfit parent because, at the time of trial, DHS presented evidence that showed that the Mother was engaged in “appropriate services” and that she had not been in contact with the abusive partner anymore. Additionally, the Mother argued that it was not in her daughter’s best interest to terminate her parental rights because there was evidence that there was a bond between her daughter and herself, that visitations had gone well, and that discontinuing visitations would be detrimental to her daughter. In response, DHS argued that although there was evidence of the Mother’s progress, it was not sufficient to show that the Mother was no longer “unfit.” Additionally, DHS argued that the daughter had spent most of her life in foster care, so any negative effects from terminating the Mother’s parental rights were outweighed by the greater benefit in “freeing” the daughter for adoption. Even if DHS satisfies the statutory “clear and convincing” evidence required to terminate a parent’s rights, “the court may not terminate a parent’s rights unless clear and convincing evidence also establishes that termination is in the child’s best interests.” ORS 419B.500; State ex rel SOSCF v. Stillman, 333 Or 135, 145-146, 36 P3d 490 (2001). The evidence is said to be “clear and convincing” when “it makes the existence of a fact highly probable or when it is of extraordinary persuasiveness.” Dept. of Human Services v. R.K., 271 Or App 83, 88, 351 P3d 68, rev den, 357 Or 640 (2015). The Court concluded that the juvenile court did not err because there was “clear and convincing” evidence, both from DHS and expert testimony, that determined it was in the daughter’s best interest to terminate the Mother’s parental rights. Affirmed.