Case Name: In the Matter of Tiffany Maria Verley, A Child. STATE ex rel JUVENILE DEPARTMENT OF MULTNOMAH COUNTY, Respondent, v. VERLEY, nka Henderson, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1986-04-09
Citations: 78 Or. App. 503
Docket Number: 81,116; CA A35900
Parties: In the Matter of Tiffany Maria Verley, A Child. STATE ex rel JUVENILE DEPARTMENT OF MULTNOMAH COUNTY, Respondent, v. VERLEY, nka Henderson, Appellant.
Judges: Before Joseph, Chief Judge, and Van Hoomissen and Young, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 78
Pages: 503–504

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted February 7,
affirmed April 9,
reconsideration denied May 23,
petition for review denied June 24, 1986 (301 Or 241)
In the Matter of Tiffany Maria Verley, A Child. STATE ex rel JUVENILE DEPARTMENT OF MULTNOMAH COUNTY, Respondent, v. VERLEY, nka Henderson, Appellant.
(81,116; CA A35900)
717 P2d 186
Richard Senders, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Rose and Senders, Portland.
Keith L. Kutler, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and James E. Mountain, Jr., Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Joseph, Chief Judge, and Van Hoomissen and Young, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Mother appeals from an order terminating her parental rights. ORS 419.523, ORS 419.525. She first contends that the allegations of the petition are insufficient under ORS 419.523(2). We disagree. See State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Hayworth, 35 Or App 161, 164, 581 P2d 100, rev den 284 Or 235 (1978). Mother has not shown any prejudice as a result of the alleged insufficiency, and our examination of the record satisfies us that no prejudice resulted. Further, mother failed to raise the issue in the trial court. See Wells v. Washington County, 243 Or 246, 249-50, 412 P2d 798 (1966).
On de novo review, ORS 419.561(4), ORS 19.125(3), see State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Jones, 290 Or 799, 810, 626 P2d 882 (1981), we conclude that the allegations of the petition have been proven by clear and convincing evidence. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Farrell, 58 Or App 258, 648 P2d 401, rev den 293 Or 521 (1982); ORS 419.525(2).
Affirmed.