Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: N. A. M. F., a Child. Department of Human Services, Petitioner-Respondent, v. S. L. F., Appellant.
IN RE: A. L. F., a Child. Department of Human Services, Petitioner-Respondent, v. S. L. F., Appellant.
IN RE: W. M. B., a Child. Department of Human Services, Petitioner-Respondent, v. S. L. F., Appellant.
Mother appeals a judgment terminating her parental rights to three of her children, W, N, and A. On de novo review under a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard, see Dept. of Human Services v. T. L. M. H., 294 Or.App. 749, 750, 432 P.3d 1186 (2018), rev. den., 365 Or. 556, 451 P.3d 1002 (2019), we affirm.
The juvenile court terminated mother's parental rights under ORS 419B.504, determining, as required by the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard, that it was highly probable that she was presently “unfit by reason of conduct or condition seriously detrimental” to her children and that integration of her children into mother's home “is improbable within a reasonable time due to conduct or conditions not likely to change.” The court determined further, as required under ORS 419B.500, that termination of mother's parental rights was in the children's best interest. On appeal, mother contests the determinations that (1) she is “unfit” for purposes of ORS 419B.504; (2) integration of her children into her home is not probable within a reasonable period of time; and (3) termination is in W's best interest. Mother does not contest the best interest determination with respect to N and A.
A detailed discussion of the underlying facts of this matter would not be beneficial. Having considered the record in light of the parties’ arguments to us, we are in agreement with the juvenile court that the statutory standards for termination are met and, further, that termination is in W's best interest.
Affirmed.
PER CURIAM
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: A175922 (Control), A175923, A175924
Decided: November 17, 2021
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)