497 P.3d 802
Or. Ct. App.2021Background
- Juvenile court terminated mother’s parental rights to her son; mother appealed only the best-interest determination, and the Court of Appeals reviewed de novo under ORS 19.415(3)(a).
- Child has lived in a stable foster placement with his two older siblings for about two years, is thriving, bonded to foster parents (who want to adopt), and is securely attached to his siblings.
- Mother’s parental rights to the two older siblings were terminated in a prior proceeding by default; mother and grandmother later sought contact but had not seen those children for at least six months before the termination trial here.
- Mother has a history of heroin (IV) and methamphetamine use, arrests, incarceration, and unsuccessful treatment attempts; at the termination hearing she admitted recent heroin use but expressed intent to enter medically assisted treatment; she acknowledged she was not currently a custodial resource.
- DHS caseworker and a psychologist testified that adoption is necessary for permanency and that the child would be harmed if his legal status differed from his siblings; the juvenile court accepted that framing and concluded termination was in the child’s best interests.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding DHS failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the child’s best interests, noting permanent guardianship can provide permanency and preserve parent–child relationships.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHS) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS established by clear and convincing evidence that termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interests | Adoption is needed to provide the child with permanency and to maintain his current placement; termination is therefore in his best interests | A permanent guardianship can provide permanency while preserving mother’s relationship; termination and legal severance are unnecessary | Reversed — DHS did not meet the clear-and-convincing burden that termination is in the child’s best interests |
| Whether adoption is the only way to achieve permanency | Adoption is the only sufficiently permanent legal status to protect placement | Permanent guardianship can be permanent and secure; adoption is not required | Adoption is not the only route to permanency; T.M.D. supports guardianship as a permanency option |
| Whether the child would be harmed by having a different legal status than his adopted siblings | The child would suffer and be confused if not adopted like his siblings; equal legal status promotes stability | No clear evidence that differing legal status would harm the child; adults can communicate permanency; guardianship can preserve relationships | Record lacks clear and convincing evidence that differing legal status would harm the child or require severing mother’s rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. T. M. D., 365 Or 143 (2019) (permanent guardianship can satisfy child’s need for permanency; adoption is not the only option)
- Dept. of Human Services v. T. L. M. H., 294 Or App 749 (2018) (standard for de novo review and clear-and-convincing burden in termination best-interest analysis)
- Dept. of Human Services v. M. H., 306 Or App 150 (2020) (discussion of permanent guardianship as a permissible permanency outcome)