Case Name: In the Matter of D. E. R. E., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. E. J. E., Appellant. In the Matter of J. R. A. E., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. E. J. E., Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2015-10-21
Citations: 274 Or. App. 503
Docket Number: J140719; A159133; J140720; A159134
Parties: In the Matter of D. E. R. E., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. E. J. E., Appellant. In the Matter of J. R. A. E., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. E. J. E., Appellant.
Judges: Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and Nakamoto, Judge, and Garrett, Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 274
Pages: 503–504

Head Matter:
Submitted September 3,
affirmed October 21, 2015,
petition for review denied January 14, 2016 (358 Or 529)
In the Matter of D. E. R. E., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. E. J. E., Appellant. In the Matter of J. R. A. E., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. E. J. E., Appellant.
Marion County Circuit Court
J140719; A159133 (Control)
Marion County Circuit Court
J140720; A159134
360 P3d 755
Megan L. Jaquot filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Erin K. Galli, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and Nakamoto, Judge, and Garrett, Judge.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Father appeals a judgment terminating his parental rights to his son and daughter based on the juvenile court's finding of unfitness "by reason of extreme conduct toward any child," ORS 419B.502, and unfitness "by reason of conduct or condition seriously detrimental to the child," ORS 419B.504. He contends that the court erred by terminating his rights based on extreme conduct because the conduct relied on by the court happened 10 years before the termination trial and did not involve his children. As for termination based on the court's finding of unfitness, he contends that the court erred in concluding that integration of the children into his home within a reasonable time was improbable. Finally, father asserts that termination is not in the best interests of the children. See ORS 419B.500 (termination of parental rights must be in the best interests of the ward).
A discussion of the facts would not benefit the bench, the bar, or the public. On de novo review, ORS 19.415(3)(a), we conclude that the juvenile court properly terminated father's parental rights for unfitness under ORS 419B.504 and termination is in the best interests of the children. Because we affirm on that basis, we do not consider whether the juvenile court erred by also terminating father's parental rights because of extreme conduct under ORS 419B.502.
Affirmed.