Court Opinion

ID: 9900374
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-18 22:11:50.617946+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:04.883609
License: Public Domain

No. 432              August 30, 2023                 631

          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
                  STATE OF OREGON

                In the Matter of R. L. M.,
                   aka R. M., a Child.
          DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
                  Petitioner-Respondent,
                             v.
                         T. M. M.,
                         Appellant.
              Umatilla County Circuit Court
                        22JU00310
                    A180292 (Control)
                In the Matter of L. A. M.,
                  aka L. A. M., a Child.
          DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
                 Petitioner-Respondent,
                            v.
                        T. M. M.,
                        Appellant.
              Umatilla County Circuit Court
                  22JU00312; A180293

  Eva J. Temple, Judge.
  Submitted June 8, 2023.
  George W. Kelly filed the brief for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Inge D. Wells, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Powers, Judge, and
Hellman, Judge.
  ORTEGA, P. J.
  Affirmed.
632   Dept. of Human Services v. T. M. M.
Cite as 327 Or App 631 (2023)                               633

         ORTEGA, P. J.
         Mother appeals from a judgment terminating her
parental rights to two of her children, L and R. On appeal,
mother does not challenge the juvenile court’s determina-
tion that she is unfit under ORS 419B.504, but instead chal-
lenges only the court’s determination that termination of her
parental rights is in her children’s best interest, as required
by ORS 419B.500. Our de novo standard for review of termi-
nation cases, ORS 19.415(3)(a), “requires us to examine the
record with fresh eyes to determine whether the evidence
developed below persuades us that termination is in [the chil-
dren’s] best interest.” Dept. of Human Services v. T. L. M. H.,
294 Or App 749, 750, 432 P3d 1186 (2018), rev den, 365 Or
556 (2019). In addition, because the Department of Human
Services (DHS) must establish best interest by clear and
convincing evidence, “we must be persuaded by the evi-
dence that it is highly probable that termination of mother’s
parental rights is in [the children’s] best interest.” Id. In the
circumstances of this case, we are persuaded that DHS met
that burden, and we therefore affirm.
         Because mother challenges only the best interest
determination, we limit our discussion of the facts to those
most relevant to that determination. The children were
removed from mother’s care more than four years ago, in
June 2019, when L was three years old and R was 15 months
old. The children were placed with mother’s sister and broth-
er-in-law (the children’s aunt and uncle) and have remained
there since then. Aunt and uncle are the proposed adoptive
parents as well. Mother and aunt did not have a good rela-
tionship at the time of the original placement and, some
time after the children were placed with aunt, mother made
death threats toward aunt on social media, prompting aunt
to obtain a restraining order against mother. That order has
since expired and, by the time of trial, mother and aunt had
begun to engage by phone and exchange of letters.
         The juvenile court took jurisdiction of the children
based on allegations regarding mother’s criminal activities,
substance abuse, failure to maintain a safe environment
for the children, and exposing them to domestic violence.
For the first 16 months that they were out of her care, from
634                    Dept. of Human Services v. T. M. M.

June 2019 to November 2020, mother was on probation and
was using methamphetamine and alcohol with some periods
of sobriety. She completed substance abuse assessments but
did not begin any recommended treatment. She only visited
L twice and R once during that period, and her visits were
suspended after she became verbally and physically aggres-
sive in the DHS office, screaming and ripping items off the
walls. Mother attributed the lack of visits during this period
to DHS cancelling visits that she had scheduled, for no rea-
son, and changing the phone number so that she could not
reach DHS.
          Mother’s probation was revoked in December 2020,
and she spent the next year, until November 2021, in county
jail. During that time, mother was often in segregation due
to her behavior and, as a result, arranging for visitation
was difficult. Mother had one video visit with the children
in October 2021. In November of that year, mother pleaded
guilty to a felony charge pending from before she entered
jail and another felony charge that arose out of her conduct
in jail, and she was sentenced to prison and moved to Coffee
Creek Correctional Facility. Her earliest scheduled release
date is in April 2024.
         At Coffee Creek, mother was diagnosed with
“unspecified schizophrenia” or “unspecified psychotic dis-
order,” and began taking antidepressant and antipsychotic
medications that the prison manages. She became more sta-
ble and has begun to achieve some insights. If mother were
to stop her medication, she would regress into depression
and possibly psychosis. Mother has remained sober while
incarcerated but has not engaged in any treatment.
         After stabilizing, mother began writing to the
children and to aunt. She also enrolled in a parenting pro-
gram. Mother testified that her relationship with aunt had
improved, while aunt testified that they recently had had
“a couple” of positive interactions. About six months before
the termination trial, mother resumed visitation with the
children by video once a month. Mother believes that the
visits go “really well,” that the children enjoy interacting
with her, and that they have a loving and secure bond with
her. However, aunt and the visitation caseworker testified
Cite as 327 Or App 631 (2023)                             635

that the children’s engagement with mother is “very sur-
face” or “minimal” and that the children are not connected
with mother. At best, L has an attachment to mother that
is “elementary” and “lacks development,” while R does not
understand mother’s relationship to him.
          The children have been doing well in their placement
with aunt and uncle, with whom the children are bonded as
parents. They are also bonded to the couple’s children as
siblings. Aunt has been facilitating L and R continuing a
relationship with their older brother, their maternal grand-
mother, L’s paternal grandparents, and other extended fam-
ily, in addition to facilitating the video visits with mother.
          When L came into care with aunt and uncle, she
exhibited some concerning behaviors that resolved after
about a year. However, since resuming visitation with
mother, L again began wetting her bed. She has post-
traumatic stress disorder, and attention-deficit/hyperactiv-
ity disorder (ADHD) and learning disabilities will need to
be ruled out once she begins school. L told her evaluator
that she wanted to stay with aunt. When R came into care,
he struggled with tantrums, but therapy with aunt helped.
He has an adjustment disorder with disturbance in conduct,
and ADHD will need to be ruled out. The psychologist who
evaluated the children, Dr. Giesick, testified that they have
“high needs” and will need parental advocacy in the school
system, and that R needs parental support for his develop-
ment. Aunt testified that the children thrive with structure
and routine, and that when their routine is off, “their behav-
ior is off as well.”
         Giesick opined that, despite being with aunt and
uncle for some time, the children are still exhibiting stress
from a lack of permanency, and that adoption by aunt and
uncle is in their best interest. She primarily based that opin-
ion on their young age, their lack of attachment to mother,
and because adoption signals a “forever” placement to chil-
dren, where a guardianship does end at some point when a
child reaches majority. She further testified that “the risk
of them not getting permanency is much more worrisome”
than any risk of severing the legal bond with mother.
636                     Dept. of Human Services v. T. M. M.

         Aunt testified that, once mother is out of prison and
has some stability, contact with her would “absolutely” be
positive “if she [can] show up for [the children] in some capac-
ity when she’s available * * * as long as it’s safe.” However,
aunt did not wish to engage in preadoption mediation with
mother because of the abuse she experienced from mother
and because she did not believe that mother was willing to
work with her as the children’s parent. She also was con-
cerned about maintaining control over any contact because
of mother’s past substance abuse and behavioral history.
         Moody, a DHS caseworker for the family from
June 2021 to July 2022, also opined that the most appro-
priate plan for the children was adoption, though she also
thought it would be healthy for the children to continue to
have contact with mother even if her rights were termi-
nated. The DHS caseworker currently assigned to work with
the family, Kent, testified that the children would benefit
from developing positive interactions with mother. Kent also
testified that stability was most important for the children
because, given their trauma, they need to feel safe and “like
they’re not going to be bouncing around.”
         Mother testified that she believed that she and the
children were bonded, that they were attached to her, and
that she would be ready to parent them within six months
of her release from prison. She expressed the belief that
it would be in their best interest to be placed with her or
with her mother (their maternal grandmother), and that the
children would not experience trauma if they were removed
from aunt’s care. The DHS caseworkers and Giesick testi-
fied that such a move would be traumatic or detrimental for
the children due to the bond between them and their care-
givers and the length of time spent in their care.
        The juvenile court determined that DHS had proved
by clear and convincing evidence the statutory grounds for
terminating mother’s parental rights.
        On appeal, mother argues that it is not in her chil-
dren’s best interest to terminate her parental rights. She
notes that she is currently sober and intends to complete
treatment. She also expressed that she would not return to
Cite as 327 Or App 631 (2023)                              637

drug use upon her release from prison. She further urges
that her mental health needs are being met, that she has
reestablished positive relationships with aunt and the chil-
dren, and that several witnesses testified that future con-
tact with mother would benefit the children. Mother argues
that a permanent guardianship with aunt is a better fit for
the children than terminating mother’s parental rights,
because it would give them permanency while allowing
mother some level of court-ordered contact.
         On de novo review, we are persuaded that, in the
circumstances presented here, it is in the children’s best
interest to terminate mother’s parental rights and to free
them for adoption by aunt and uncle, even while we recog-
nize the value of continued contact with mother. We note
first that the children are not bonded to mother, given their
young ages and the length of time they have been out of her
care. At best, L’s attachment to mother is elementary and
R is not attached to her at all, in contrast to cases where
a child’s attachment to the parent is compelling evidence
that terminating the parent’s rights is not in the child’s best
interest. See, e.g., Dept. of Human Services v. T. M. D., 365 Or
143, 165, 442 P3d 1100 (2019) (substantial evidence in the
case established that child had an interest in maintaining
his relationship with his mother); T. L. M. H., 294 Or App at
751 (the record showed that the child was strongly bonded
to his mother and older sister). That lack of attachment,
while understandable, is especially concerning given that
mother does not evince a realistic view of the attachment
the children have to her or their caregivers and does not
evince awareness of their needs, raising significant doubt
about her ability to meet the children where they are at in
order to create a stronger bond with them.
         Second, the children are strongly bonded to their
current family, where they have stabilized and improved.
L expressed a desire to stay with them. Maintaining those
bonds is important for the children and removing them from
the family, as mother suggested should happen at trial,
would be traumatic for them. Aunt has also demonstrated
her willingness to facilitate the children’s relationships with
other members of their family, including their older brother,
638                    Dept. of Human Services v. T. M. M.

their maternal grandmother, L’s grandparents, and mother.
Aunt’s only reservation with allowing the children to have
contact with mother is that aunt needs to have control of
that contact to ensure that it is safe for mother to be around
the children—that is, that mother is stable and sober. That
reservation is appropriate given mother’s history of instabil-
ity and extreme behavior, including toward aunt, when she
is not medicated and sober, and because mother has not yet
maintained such stability outside the prison environment.
While termination of mother’s legal relationship with the
children is significant, the record here supports the view
that aunt understands the value of contact with mother if
it can be managed safely, and also offers a basis for her con-
cern about the need to manage that contact.
         Third, all the witnesses, other than mother, testi-
fied about the importance of permanency for the children
that preserves their primary attachments. Mother, on the
other hand, testified that what was best for the children
was to live with either her or their maternal grandmother,
and she did not believe that the children would experience
trauma if they were moved from aunt and uncle’s home.
That testimony and mother’s history raises doubt about the
efficacy of a permanent guardianship in this case; there is a
potential that mother would try to interfere with aunt and
uncle becoming the permanent guardians of the children, or
may not respect the boundaries of an established guardian-
ship. Any further delay in permanency or any confusion or
disruption by mother to an established guardianship—even
if mother could not undo the guardianship itself—would
not be in the children’s best interest. See Dept. of Human
Services v. W. L. J.-E., 324 Or App 121, 124-25, 524 P3d 989
(2023) (taking into consideration father’s substance abuse
and mental health history, poor compliance with treatment,
and past inability to conform his conduct to court and socie-
tal expectations, in determining that termination of father’s
parental rights was in the child’s best interest).
        Having set out our reasons for concluding that ter-
mination is in the children’s best interest, we acknowledge
that mother has made positive improvements in the months
leading up to the termination trial and that the children
Cite as 327 Or App 631 (2023)                            639

could benefit from future positive interactions with mother.
Although fostering such positive interactions in the future
could be of benefit to the children—as such positive relation-
ships with a child’s birth mother are generally beneficial to
any child—that generalized benefit does not outweigh the
clear and convincing evidence presented here that what is
in these children’s best interest is termination of mother’s
parental rights.
        Affirmed.