Dep’t of Human Servs. v. T.M.D.

"In a termination proceeding, if a parent’s conduct justifies termination, then the best interests of the child are considered explicitly, and could even then prevent termination from occurring.” State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Beasley, 314 Or 444, 451-52, 840 P2d 78 (1992).

Mother appealed from the Court of Appeals’ termination of her parental rights and decision to free Child for adoption. Mother assigned error to the Appellate Court’s determination that is was in the Child's best interest to terminate Mother's parental rights. On review, Mother argued against the Department of Human Services' (DHS) finding that there was a presumption that adoption was in the best interest of a "child-in-care" when "reunification with the parent within a reasonable time" was not probable. In response, DHS modified its argument and asserted that a preference for adoption, while not dispositive, should result in termination when there is no evidence it will have a negative impact on a child. “In a termination proceeding, if a parent’s conduct justifies termination, then the best interests of the child are considered explicitly, and could even then prevent termination from occurring.” State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Beasley, 314 Or 444, 451-52, 840 P2d 78 (1992). The Supreme Court held there was neither a presumption nor a preference for termination based on the record. The Court further found the termination of Mother’s parental rights was not in Child’s best interests because (1) Child benefitted from his relationship with Mother and her family and (2) Child’s needs for permanency could be met through a permanent guardianship arrangement.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.