Dept. of Human Services v. J.M.-A.

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Family Law
  • Date Filed: 06-26-2024
  • Case #: A182324
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Ortega, P.J. for the Court; Powers, J.. and Hellman
  • Full Text Opinion

Terminating child's relationship with Father was not in the child's best interest where “[t]he record does not suggest that father had meaningful opportunities to coordinate directly with providers… [and does] not reflect any attempt to coordinate with or accommodate father’s working schedule or other obligations and place the burden entirely on father to appear as directed.”

Father appeals from an order terminating his parental rights. Father assigns error to the juvenile court’s determination that termination of parental rights was in his child’s best interest under ORS 419B.500. Father argues permanent guardianship satisfies the child’s need for permanency and insufficient evidence was presented to determine termination of his parental rights was in the child’s best interest given that no adoptive resource had been identified at the time of the trial. Child, approximately two-years-old at the time of trial, was medically vulnerable, extremely high needs, and nonverbal. The Child’s former and current resource parents testified to the difficulties of caring for Child’s extreme needs. The Court determined that the record failed to establish ODHS’ claims that Father declined visitation and refused to attend Child’s medical appointments. The Court reasoned that ODHS did not attempt to work with Father to schedule visitation around his work schedule and provide adequate notice for Father to attend Child’s medical appointments. “The record does not suggest that father had meaningful opportunities to coordinate directly with providers… [and does] not reflect any attempt to coordinate with or accommodate father’s working schedule or other obligations and place the burden entirely on father to appear as directed.” The Court also determined the record failed to establish that termination was in Child’s best interest, given her extreme medical needs and the lack of an identified adoptive placement. The Court held, under the totality of the circumstances, severing Child’s legal relationship with Father was not in her nest interest based on the record. Reversed and remanded.

Advanced Search


Back to Top