- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Juvenile Law
- Date Filed: 08-11-2021
- Case #: A175072
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Ortega, P.J. for the Court; Shorr, J.; & Landau, S.J.
- Full Text Opinion
Mother appealed a juvenile court’s judgement terminating her parental rights to her son. On appeal, she does not challenge the court’s determination that she is unfit to be a custodial resource for the child, but rather contends that the Department of Human Services failed to meet its burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that termination of her parental rights would be in the child’s best interests. On appeal, the mother argued that separation from her, and the child’s grandmother, was not shown to be in the child’s best interest. In response, the Department of Human Services argued that permanency can only be achieved through adoption, and a permanency plan is in the child’s best interest. The Court rejected the notion that permanency can only be achieved through adoption, and found err in the juvenile court’s determination that clear and convincing evidence of the contrary was present. Ultimately the Court determined that the Department of Human Services failed to meet its burden by failing to show by clear and convincing evidence that terminating mother’s parental rights were in the best interest of the child. Reversed.