Case ID: or-app_231/html/0565-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued and submitted September 18,
    affirmed October 28, 2009,
    N. A. H.’s petition for review denied January 21 (347 Or 533); C. G.-D.’s petition for review denied February 4, 2010 (347 Or 608) '
    In the Matter of A. A. H., aka A. A. H., aka A. D.; and K. C. H., aka K. G.-D., Children. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. C. G.-D., aka C. D.; and N. A. H., Appellants.
    
    Petition Number 105054M; 2007800031, 2007800032; A141952
    Multnomah County Circuit Court
    220 P3d 426
    Margaret McWilliams argued the cause for appellant C. G.-D.
    Ann Lechman-Su argued the cause for appellant N. A. H. With her on the brief was Johnson & Lechman-Su, PC.
    Justice J. Rillera, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were John R. Kroger, Attorney General, and Jerome Lidz, Solicitor General.
    Dover A. Norris-York argued the cause for children. With her on the brief was Angela Sherbo.
    Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Schuman, Judge, and Ortega, Judge.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

Mother and father appeal judgments terminating their parental rights to their two children on grounds of unfitness and neglect. They contend that the evidence was legally insufficient to justify termination of their parental rights on either of those grounds. On de novo review, State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Geist, 310 Or 176, 194, 796 P2d 1193 (1990), we conclude that the trial court did not err in terminating parental rights based on the unfitness of both parents. Discussion of the relevant facts would benefit neither bench nor bar. Because we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to terminate parental rights on unfitness grounds, we do not address the sufficiency of the evidence on the ground of parental neglect.

Affirmed.