Case Name: In the Matter of Sherrie and Sheila Davis, Children. STATE ex rel JUVENILE DEPARTMENT OF GILLIAM COUNTY, Respondent, v. DAVIS, et al, Appellants
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1980-12-01
Citations: 49 Or. App. 485
Docket Number: Nos. 77 & 78, CA 16509
Parties: In the Matter of Sherrie and Sheila Davis, Children. STATE ex rel JUVENILE DEPARTMENT OF GILLIAM COUNTY, Respondent, v. DAVIS, et al, Appellants.
Judges: Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Thornton and Buttler, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 49
Pages: 485–488

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted September 5,
affirmed December 1, 1980,
reconsideration denied January 15, petition for review denied March 17, 1981 (290 Or 631)
In the Matter of Sherrie and Sheila Davis, Children. STATE ex rel JUVENILE DEPARTMENT OF GILLIAM COUNTY, Respondent, v. DAVIS, et al, Appellants.
(Nos. 77 & 78, CA 16509)
619 P2d 1330
William J. Kuhn, Heppner, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellants.
Al J. Laue, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were James M. Brown, Attorney General, and Walter L. Barrie, Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Thornton and Buttler, Judges.
PER CURIAM.
THORNTON, J., dissenting opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners appeal an order terminating their parental rights in two of their children. We have examined the record on de novo review and conclude the court properly terminated the parental rights of both parents.
The children were made wards of the court and committed to the custody of Children's Services Division for placement in a foster home. The CSD caseworker assigned to the children placed them in the home of the caseworker's parents. The foster parents expressed a desire to adopt the children. The caseworker recognized a potential conflict and requested that she be removed from the case. Her supervisor declined her request. Petitioners argue that there was a conflict of interest that made the caseworker less than enthusiastic in her efforts to reunite the family. Although the conflict in which the caseworker was involved has an appearance of impropriety, the record does not support petitioners' allegation of lack of diligence.
Affirmed.