Dept. of Human Services v. M. A. N.

"The juvenile code does not permit decisions to terminate parental rights to hinge on abstract notions of permanency. . . [r]ather, the juvenile code demands a persuasive factual showing that termination of parental rights to a particular child is in that child's best interest, in view of the particular needs and circumstances of the child." Dept. of Human Services v. T. L. M. H., 294 Or App 749, 750, 432 P3d 1186 (2018), rev den, 365 Or 556 (2019).

Mother appealed the juvenile court's judgement terminating her parental rights.  Mother assigned error to the court's determination that she was unfit to parent, that termination of parental rights were in J's interest, that DHS used active efforts to prevent the breakup of this Indian family, and that Mother's continued custody would likely result in serious damage to J.  Mother argued that she has a strong bond with J and that there was insufficient evidence that termination of her parental rights was necessary.  DHS argued that it was in J's best interest to achieve permanency as soon as possible, which required termination of Mother's parental rights.  "The juvenile code does not permit decisions to terminate parental rights to hinge on abstract notions of permanency. . . [r]ather, the juvenile code demands a persuasive factual showing that termination of parental rights to a particular child is in that child's best interest, in view of the particular needs and circumstances of the child." Dept. of Human Services v. T. L. M. H., 294 Or App 749, 750, 432 P3d 1186 (2018), rev den, 365 Or 556 (2019).  The Court held that Mother was not currently fit to parent J, but that there was insufficient evidence to show that terminating her parental right was in J's best interest.  Reversed and remanded.