Court Opinion

ID: 9784887
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 20:56:53.952559+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:00.718990
License: Public Domain

DEITS, C. J.,
dissenting.
I agree with the majority that, while he has been in prison, father has made significant efforts to combat his drug addiction and that he has, in fact, been a model prisoner in *460many ways. I do not agree, however, with the majority’s conclusion that father’s efforts are sufficient to justify exposing his children to the risk of suffering a continuing indefinite period of instability in their lives. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
As the majority correctly explains, our task on de novo review is to determine whether the state has proven by clear and convincing evidence that father is presently unfit by reason of conduct or condition that is seriously detrimental to the children and that integration of the children into father’s home is improbable within a reasonable time due to conduct or conditions not likely to change. ORS 419B.504; State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Johnson, 165 Or App 147, 156, 997 P2d 231 (2000). Because the majority concludes that the state failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that father was unfit at the time of trial, it fails to reach the issue of “whether integration of the [children] into the home of [father] is improbable within a reasonable time due to conduct or conditions not likely to change.” ORS 419B.504. As I will explain, I believe that the state did prove that father was presently unfit and, therefore, I would reach the question of whether integration of the children into father’s home is improbable within a reasonable time. The answer to that question involves consideration of, among other things, how the children have been affected by father’s situation.
It is undisputed that, at the time of trial, father was incarcerated and was, therefore, unable to care for his children. It is true that “we have consistently held that incarceration alone does not warrant a finding of unfitness, although a prolonged period of incarceration will warrant such a finding.” 167 Or App at 457. However, while incarceration alone usually will not support a finding of unfitness, incarceration in addition to other factors may support such a finding. In my view, the majority incorrectly concludes that “neither father’s incarceration nor the possibility of a relapse provides clear and convincing evidence that father [was] presently unfit under ORS 419B.504 (1997).” 167 Or App at 459 (emphasis added). The majority errs in analyzing father’s incarceration and drug problems separately to determine whether he was unfit. At the time of trial, not only was father unable to physically care for his children because he was incarcerated, but, *461as he testified, there would be an additional period of time after his release before he could possibly care for them. To be in a position to care for his children, father will have to prove that he is able to maintain his sobriety outside of a controlled environment, obtain steady employment, establish a home, and prove to SOSCF that he is a competent parent. Consequently, in my view, there is no question that, at the time of trial, father was unfit to parent by reason of conduct or condition.
As noted above, the question that the majority does not address and that I believe is determinative here, is whether “integration of the [children] into the home of [father] is improbable within a reasonable time due to conduct or conditions not likely to change.” ORS 419B.504 (emphasis added). I agree with the trial court that the answer to that question is no.
In answering that question, I would first note that, as we pointed out in our decision in State ex rel SOSCF v. Duncan, 164 Or App 610, 613, 993 P2d 818 (1999), the statutory standard has changed. Now, rather than determining whether reintegration of the children into the parent’s home is improbable in the “foreseeable future,” we must decide whether reintegration is improbable “within a reasonable time.” A “reasonable time” is defined in the statutes as “a period of time that is reasonable given a child’s emotional and developmental needs and ability to form and maintain lasting attachments.” ORS 419B.504; ORS 419A.004(17); Duncan, 164 Or App at 613-14. Consequently, in deciding what is a “reasonable time,” we must consider all of the circumstances of each individual case, including the history of the parent’s condition, its impact on the children, and the individual needs and abilities of each child.
In arguing that his parental rights should not be terminated, father relies strongly on his efforts to overcome his problems while in federal prison serving his sentence on the drug charges that resulted in the placement of his children in state custody in 1996. He contends that his efforts demonstrate that he is “entitled to have the opportunity to regain custody of his children.” Father’s efforts during this current incarceration are laudable. However, those efforts must be *462considered in the context of father’s past behavior and the impact that behavior has had on his children.
The record shows that father has had a fairly extensive history of treatment, relapse and escalating drug use. He was first convicted on drug charges in 1986. While serving a suspended sentence for that offense, he violated the conditions of his probation and was sent to prison. After serving three months in prison, he was given temporary leave. However, in 1989, he was again found in possession of drugs. He then entered and successfully competed a six-month chemical dependancy treatment program. He remained drug free for a period of about 18 months, after which he began using alcohol and drugs again. This relapse occurred in 1991, shortly after the birth of his first child. As father’s drug use escalated, he lost his job. His involvement in the drug culture increased until, in 1996, after being unemployed for some time, he became involved in the manufacture of methamphetamine.
In May 1996, Eugene police officers raided the home, where father, mother, and the children lived, and found a methamphetamine lab. Following that incident, father did not begin a drug treatment program until approximately six months after his arrest. His delay in seeking treatment was apparently out of concern that his involvement in treatment might be used against him in his criminal case. In fact, he continued to use methamphetamine during the time between his May arrest and September when he was officially charged. He began a drug treatment program in November of 1996, at about the time that a hearing was scheduled on the wardship of the children. However, father again tested positive for drug use in April 1997. He began serving his prison sentence in October 1997.
Father’s lengthy history of drug use is countered by his success in completing drug treatment programs while in prison. That success, however, is not a guarantee that father will be able to maintain his sobriety after his release. Dr. Basham, who, at the request of SOSCF, conducted a psychological evaluation of father in February 1997, testified at trial. He discussed his expectations for a person of father’s personality type following release from prison:
*463“The fact of staying free of drugs while incarcerated really says nothing about long-term prospects. Many individuals who are drug-addicted and spend time in jail and prison will resume patterns of past drug use even after relatively long periods of incarceration. So a dependence on drugs is often a largely psychological factor which is not diminished solely by the fact of not having drugs available.
“It would certainly be a required number of months of returned living in the community and that would depend upon the level of motivation and monitoring. If a person was being, for example, monitored through urinalyses and faced with an immediate consequence of returning to prison for drug use, the external motivation for change remains and so there’s still the question about whether they will make those efforts once those external motivations are gone.”
In addition, witnesses at the termination proceeding, including mother, stated that father has a tendency not to perform as promised and to say or do whatever is necessary to get what he wants. The children’s foster mother, who knew father quite well, testified that:
“I think [father] has good intentions, I think [he] wanted these things to happen. I think [father] is a very likeable, very nice person. He knows what people want to hear, he knows the right thing to do, he knows the right thing to say. And at the time, I think he believes it, that he can do it. He believes or knows, most of the time he believes it. But he just doesn’t seem to be able to make it happen.
“[Father] really presents a good image, [he] is a nice person, a good person in many ways. And I like [him] a lot. But I feel like his character is such that when somebody is watching and doing things he will look good. He got off early probation on his first time in prison because he was playing golf with the probation officer. He’d tell me about that. And how good he was doing and what he was doing and how they were really happy with his progress. But it wasn’t that much longer that I felt he was re-involved with drug activities.”
As discussed above, the statute requires that the children’s developmental and emotional needs be considered *464in deciding whether their reintegration into father’s home is probable within a “reasonable time.” The evidence here shows that the children have been adversely impacted by the uncertainty in their lives created by the unavailability of their parents. The majority notes that the children’s therapist, Linda Seymour, testified that they are “ ‘doing very well by comparison [to other children who have been in foster care for the same length of time].’ ” 167 Or App at 454. This statement, however, must be considered in context. The same counselor also testified that she sometimes refers to children in situations similar to the one here “as the ghost children because they seem insubstantial in their connection with the world and with reality and with present time because they’re so insecure about what’s going to happen for them.” The counselor testified with respect to the specific problems that father’s children are experiencing:
“The problems were mostly around an anxiety adjustment to life’s circumstances. Simply put, they had lots of stuff going on in their lives. It was confusing to them and they were anxious about it.
“I think that they’ve come — it comes and goes with them when things change in their life. For instance, the last time they came back in, it was because of this pending termination, parental rights termination. There was a lot more anxiety. It was coming up for [daughter], for instance, it was coming up in a problem at school where her teacher had the complaint that she could no longer pay attention in school to do her schoolwork. And she exhibited a lot of what we call parentified behaviors, when the child takes on an adult role and tries to control the situation to reduce their anxiety by, you know, trying to make sure that everything stays in place and everybody does what they’re supposed to, and bossing her little brother and behaviors like that. Lots of tension and stress.
“The other thing that I was concerned about with [daughter] at that time was that she had a remarkably different physical appearance from the previous time I had seen her. And apparently she had gone from a size eight dress to a size 12 dress in a few months. That would indicate to me that there was a great deal of anxiety in her life *465and that she was probably over-eating to try to reduce that.”
Fortunately, the children’s foster mother has apparently provided a stable and supportive environment for the children. Nonetheless, the evidence shows that these children have been seriously affected by their circumstances. Because of the tension and stress surrounding their situation, the children have had trouble in school, social difficulties, physical problems, and the older child exhibits parenti-fied behaviors — taking on adult roles to try to control her environment.
Seymour testified that the children need permanency, safety and to know where they are going to be next week, next month and next year. She said that if they have to wait another year for that permanency that:
“Their life goes on hold, it continues to be on hold developmentally. It’s very difficult for a child to continue to make progress in their life, go through the developmental stages that they need to go through to become adults if even their present is tentative, that they don’t know what’s going to be predictable for them.”
She also testified that, because their foster mother, whom the children have been with since their parents were arrested in 1996, would not be able to continue to care for them much longer, the best thing would be for them to go directly to a permanent placement.1
The majority holds that father should be given a reasonable opportunity to show that the changes he has made are permanent. I agree that parents should be given a reasonable opportunity to prove themselves as parents, but they are not entitled to unlimited opportunity. There comes a time when a child’s need for permanency and stability requires that a parent’s rights be terminated. At the time of trial, father had been unavailable to parent these children for three years. Contrary to the majority’s understanding of the testimony at trial, the earliest father will be available to care *466for his children is a year. Rather than “cutting” against the state’s case the uncertainty about how long it may take father to be ready to parent his children is the state’s case. Under a best case scenario, father would be released from prison in October 1999. He would then be placed in a halfway house, followed by supervised release. He estimated that he could be ready for the children to be reintegrated into his home about a year after his release from prison. Even assuming that father is successful, these children should not be forced to remain “on hold” waiting for him.
The difficult and critical question in this case is whether, after considering all of the circumstances — including father’s history, the length of time the children have been in foster care, and these children’s need for permanency — the risk posed to the children, by the continuing uncertainty in their lives, if father’s rights are not terminated, is too great. The trial court, which had the opportunity to observe father as a witness, addressed this question in an articulate and thoughtful manner and concluded that the risk to the children was too great:
“The other thing that I think needs to be taken into account is the history that’s presented by [father] and how I have to weigh that against the needs of the children. * * * And the point that I end up with that I’ve been unable to find a reasonable way to move away from or to avoid is that these children, as commented already by the testimony and argument of counsel and Ms. Seymour’s testimony and by anybody’s understanding, what needs the children have is for permanency now. And that’s an extremely important need. That because of the convictions that [father] has, which I take to be not simply the most recent but it’s also that his sentence was influenced by his prior conduct, he’s unavailable to provide.
“And while it may be all well and good for counsel to say, well, maybe a few more months is not that much to wait, that takes us — first of all, I think that’s easy enough for counsel representing the father to say, but I don’t have to buy into it. It also does not really address the additional question of whether or not these children should be put into the posture of the risk, which I consider to be high, that this won’t work out. And I take into consideration with respect to that the fact that while [father] has presented himself as *467hard working and now internally motivated to be clean and sober, my guess is that he would have said to me at the end of that session with Passages * * * that he is internally motivated to be clean and sober then, that his incarceration in the criminal division, when though relatively short, was enough to cure him and that he was now mature enough that he wasn’t going to have a further relapse.
“But instead of the success that he would have wanted me to hear about, and he perhaps internally believed was true, by 1996 he’s up to the hubs in the drug culture far worse than, as far as I know, than he was before. No longer was he simply possessing it or making delivery here or there, he was on full scale manufacturing routine * * *[.]
“And then, after the apparently successful treatment with ACES as provided by Mr. Ricker, we have yet another relapse in the time when he is under supervision and is facing sentencing in the federal case.
“So, I’d have to say that in my estimation, and I find by clear and convincing evidence, that the fact of his incarceration which will not make him available within a reasonable period of time, * * * I find by clear and convincing evidence that there is way too much risk that we’re going to be looking down the same problem somewhere in the future. And it’s way more risk than I’m going to put these children through.”
I agree with the trial court that the state has proven that reintegration of the children into father’s home in a “reasonable time is improbable” and that, under all of the circumstances here, termination is in the best interests of the children. I would affirm the trial court’s decision to terminate father’s parental rights.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

 Stewart understood this to mean a permanent placement with the children’s maternal grandfather with whom they had been spending time and who expected to be the adoptive permanent placement.