Dept. of Human Services v. M. U.
Citation
341 Or. App. 206
Court
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided
June 4, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Importance
45%
Practice Areas
Case Summary
206 June 4, 2025 No. 524 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1). IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of A. P. N. M., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. M. U., Appellant. Polk County Circuit Court 23JU00969; A185938 (Control) In the Matter of A. L. W. M., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. M. U., Appellant. Polk County Circuit Court 23JU00970; A185939 Rafael A. Caso, Judge. Argued and submitted April 30, 2025. George W. Kelly argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant. Jeff J. Payne, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General. Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Joyce, Judge, and Jacquot, Judge. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 341 Or App 206 (2025) 207 PER CURIAM Affirmed. 208 Dept. of Human Services v. M. U. PER CURIAM Mother appeals judgments terminating her paren- tal rights to two of her children, AL and AP. In four assign- ments of error, mother contends that the juvenile court erred in finding that she knew about and aided father’s sex- ual abuse of her stepchild, M, in determining that she was unfit to parent AL and AP, and in concluding that it would be in AL’s and AP’s best interests to terminate mother’s parental rights. We review de novo, ORS 19.415(3)(a), ORS 419A.200(6), and affirm.1 A parent’s rights can be terminated when a court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent is “unfit by reason of conduct or condition seriously detrimen- tal to the child,” that “integration of the child * * * into the home * * * is improbable within a reasonable time due to con- duct or conditions not likely to change[,]” and that termina- tion is in the “best interests” of the child. ORS 419B.500(1); ORS 419B.504; ORS 419B.521(1); State ex rel SOSCF v. Stillman, 333 Or 135, 144-46, 36 P3d 490 (2001). “Evidence is clear and convincing when it makes the existence of a fact highly probable or when it is of extraordinary persuasive- ness.” Dept. of Human Services v. R. K., 271 Or App 83, 88, 351 P3d 68, rev den, 357 Or 640 (2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). In her first assignment of error, mother argues that the juvenile court erred in finding that she knew about and aided father’s sexual abuse of M. But mother reported father’s sexual abuse of M to police in April 2018, and, at the termination of parental rights (TPR) trial, M testified that mother knew about father’s sexual abuse. The detailed nature of mother’s report to the police supports its verac- ity. At the TPR trial, mother testified that her report to the police was false, but her account of why she lied to the police is implausible. In addition, the juvenile court found that mother’s testimony was not credible, and that some of M’s testimony about sexual abuse was corroborated and credi- ble. Even on de novo review, we give “considerable weight” 1 Also decided today is Dept. of Human Services v. M. D. M., 341 Or App 201, (Jun 4, 2025), in which we affirm judgments terminating father’s parental rights to the same two children. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 341 Or App 206 (2025) 209 to demeanor-based credibility findings, because the juve- nile court judge “had the opportunity to observe the wit- nesses and their demeanor in evaluating the credibility of their testimony.” Dept. of Human Services v. T. L. B., 294 Or App 514, 516, 432 P3d 343 (2018), rev den, 365 Or 556 (2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). Having reviewed the record de novo and giving due weight to the juvenile court’s demeanor-based credibility findings, we reject mother’s first assignment of error. In her second and third assignments, mother argues that the juvenile court erred in determining that she was unfit to care for AL and AP because she has kept father away from the farm for six years, she intends to continue doing so, and her other children will ensure that father has no contact with AL and AP. However, at the time of the TPR trial, mother was pregnant with her seventh child, and she acknowledged that father was the father. Reviewing the record de novo, it shows that mother is unable or unwill- ing to understand that father is a danger to the children. In addition, mother has not participated in services since 2021, she remains married to and dependent on father, and we
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 4, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
AI-generated comprehensive summary with legal analysis
Case Overview
Case Name: Dept. of Human Services v. M. U.
Citation: 341 Or. App. 206
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
Date: June 4, 2025
Jurisdiction: SA
This case involves the termination of parental rights of M. U. regarding her two children, AL and AP. The Department of Human Services (DHS) sought to terminate M. U.'s parental rights based on findings of unfitness due to her involvement with her partner, who was accused of sexual abuse.
Key Legal Issues
- Termination of Parental Rights: Whether the juvenile court erred in terminating M. U.'s parental rights based on her alleged unfitness.
- Credibility of Testimony: The weight of M. U.'s testimony against evidence presented by the DHS.
- Best Interests of the Child: Determining if termination serves the best interests of the children involved.
Court's Decision
The Court of Appeals of Oregon affirmed the juvenile court's decision to terminate M. U.'s parental rights. The court found substantial evidence supporting the termination based on M. U.'s unfitness and the children's best interests.
Legal Reasoning
The court applied the standard of clear and convincing evidence as required by Oregon statutes (ORS 419B.500). The court emphasized that a parent can be deemed unfit if their conduct is seriously detrimental to the child and if the integration of the child into the home is improbable due to unchanging conditions.
Key Findings:
- M. U. reported her partner's sexual abuse of a stepchild, but later recanted her statement, which the court found implausible.
- The court deemed M. U.'s testimony not credible, particularly in light of corroborated evidence from the child victim.
- M. U. had not participated in any rehabilitative services since 2021 and remained dependent on her partner, who posed a danger to the children.
Key Holdings
- Affirmation of Termination: The court upheld the juvenile court's ruling that M. U. was unfit to parent AL and AP.
- Best Interests Determination: The court concluded that terminating parental rights was in the best interests of the children, given their long-term placement with a resource family willing to adopt.
Precedents and Citations
- ORS 419B.500: Statute outlining the conditions under which parental rights can be terminated.
- State ex rel SOSCF v. Stillman, 333 Or 135 (2001): Established standards for determining parental unfitness.
- Dept. of Human Services v. R. K., 271 Or App 83 (2015): Discussed the burden of proof in parental rights cases.
Practical Implications
This case underscores the importance of parental accountability in cases involving child welfare. It highlights the court's commitment to prioritizing the best interests of the child over parental rights when substantial evidence of unfitness is presented. Legal practitioners should note the emphasis on credibility assessments and the need for parents to engage in rehabilitative services to retain their parental rights.
The ruling serves as a critical reminder of the legal standards surrounding parental rights termination and the weight of evidence required to support such decisions in Oregon.
Legal Topics
Areas of law covered in this case
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 4, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools