Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re C.M.H.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

July 22, 2015

In the Matter of C.M.H., a Child.
v.
J. C. H., Appellant. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, In the Matter of C. J. H., IV, a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
J. C. H., Appellant. In the Matter of K. D. H., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
J. C. H., Appellant

Argued and Submitted February 12, 2015

00402J. Lane County Circuit Court. Petition Number 00402J05. Charles D. Carlson, Judge.

11551J. Lane County Circuit Court. Petition Number 11551J04. Charles D. Carlson, Judge.

11552J. Lane County Circuit Court. Petition Number 11552J04. Charles D. Carlson, Judge.

Daniel J. Casey argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

Shannon T. Reel, Senior Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General.

Before Nakamoto, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and Wilson, Senior Judge.

OPINION

[272 Or.App. 415] EGAN, J.

In this consolidated termination of parental rights (TPR) case, father appeals a judgment terminating his parental rights to three of his four children.[1] In a single assignment of error, father asserts that the record does not provide a basis for termination of his parental rights by clear and convincing evidence. Father argues that, on de novo review, ORS 19.415(3)(a), we should conclude that the juvenile court erred in terminating his parental rights, because the Department of Human Services (DHS) failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that father " was statutorily unfit and that termination is in the children's best interests[.]" Having reviewed the record de novo, we reject that argument without further written discussion.[2] Father also argues that his parental rights cannot be terminated on

Page 295

conditions or circumstances extrinsic to the grounds that DHS proved at the jurisdictional hearing, as reflected in the jurisdictional judgment, because to do so would deprive father of constitutionally adequate notice " as to what, exactly, he * * * is supposed to be doing" to end DHS involvement. The juvenile court rejected that argument. We affirm, but on different grounds.

We begin with a brief discussion of the underlying facts--as we find them--leading up to the termination hearing. Father has four children: one daughter, J, and three sons. Father's three sons are the children at issue in this case. CM was 13 years old at the time of trial. CJ, who has autism, was seven years old at the time of trial. KD was six years old at the time of trial.

Father has a lengthy history of involvement with DHS in two separate states, generally for issues relating to his mental health, inadequate or dangerous housing, substance abuse, failure to protect some or all of his children from dangerous individuals, and neglectful conditions, such as inadequate nutrition and poor cleanliness and hygiene. Father underwent a psychological evaluation and was diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder based, among [272 Or.App. 416] other things, on his unrealistic beliefs about his ability to solve his personal and family problems, anger management issues, and lack of understanding of how his behaviors negatively affected his children. The doctor performing the evaluation recommended that father engage in individual behavioral treatment including treatment to help father identify negative thinking patterns that lead to poor choices that place the children at risk.

In July 2012, the juvenile court took jurisdiction over all four of father's children.[3] The grounds for jurisdiction primarily involved father's inability to protect his daughter, J, from multiple instances of sexual abuse and the children's exposure to incidents of domestic violence between father and his live-in girlfriend. After taking jurisdiction over all four children, DHS removed J from the home, but allowed the three boys to remain with father. At the outset, father participated adequately in services and kept his home at or above community cleanliness standards. Approximately one month after the court took jurisdiction, the two youngest children, KD and CJ, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.