In the Matter of T. M. H., a Child.
M. A. H., Appellant. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, In the Matter of A. K. H., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent,
M. A. H., Appellant. In the Matter of M. R. H., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent,
M. A. H., Appellant. In the Matter of A. K. H., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent,
M. A. H., Appellant.
and submitted May 15, 2018.
Or.App. 727] Clatsop County Circuit Court 16JU07456,
16JU07457, 16JU07458, 14JU03564, 14JU03565, 14JU03566,
15JU03660, 15JU03661, 15JU03662
Valerie Colas, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for
appellant. Also on the briefs was Shannon Storey, Chief
Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, Offce of Public Defense
C. Lucas, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for
respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum,
Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.
Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Chief Judge, and Powers,
Or.App. 728] Case Summary: In this consolidated appeal,
mother challenges judgments terminating her parental rights
to her three children and the denial of her motion to
terminate dependency jurisdiction as to the youngest child,
A. Held: The Court of Appeals concluded that clear
and convincing evidence established that mother had engaged
in conduct and is characterized by conditions that remain
seriously detrimental to all three children; that integration
of the children into mother's home was improbable within
a reasonable time due to conduct or conditions not likely to
change; and that termination was in the best interests of
Or.App. 729] ORTEGA, P. J.
consolidated appeal, mother challenges judgments terminating
her parental rights to her three children and the denial of
her motion to terminate dependency jurisdiction as to the
youngest child, A. We conclude that clear and convincing
evidence establishes that mother has engaged in conduct and
is characterized by conditions that remain seriously
detrimental to all three children; that integration of the
children into mother's home is improbable within a
reasonable time due to conduct or conditions not likely to
change; and that termination is in the best interests of each
of the children. Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile
of overview, the two older children, M (born in 2004) and T
(born in 2005), are in foster care for the third time, and A
(born in 2013) is in foster care for the second time. The
children have been in their current foster placement, with
their paternal grandparents, since November 2014, and we have
addressed the family's long-running involvement with the
Department of Human Services (DHS) on two prior occasions.
See Dept. of Human Services v. M. J. H, 278 Or.App.
607, 609, 375 P.3d 579 (2016), rev den, 361 Or. 486
(2017) (vacating and remanding permanency judgments), and
Dept. of Human Services v. M. A. H., 284 Or.App.
215, 218-19, 391 P.3d 985, rev den, 361 Or. 486
(2017) (concluding that DHS made reasonable efforts to
address mother's mental health needs and affirming
permanency judgments). In this appeal of the termination
judgments, we review the facts de novo, ORS
l9.4l5(3)(a), and we recount the facts only as necessary to
give context to our ruling, beginning with a summary of the
procedural history for context.
and father had a relationship characterized by domestic
violence, substance abuse, and child neglect that resulted in
the removal of M and T from their care in 2010 and removal of
all three children in 2013. M. J. H, 278 Or.App. at
609. They were returned to parents' care for a second
time in April or May of 2014. Id. In October of that
[297 Or.App. 730] year, M contacted his aunt with concerns
that mother was using drugs and, the following month, DHS
again removed the children from mother's care and placed
them in foster care with grandparents, where they have
remained for the intervening years. Id. at 609-10.
January 2015, as a consequence of that last removal from
mother's care, the juvenile court took jurisdiction
"based on the risk of harm created by mother's
criminal activities, lack of parenting skills, substance
abuse, and her practice of leaving the children with unsafe
care providers." M. A. H., 284 Or.App. 218-19.
In June 2015, DHS filed new dependency petitions,
additionally alleging that "mother has mental health
issues that interfere with her ability to safely parent her
children." Id. at 219. The cases were not
consolidated and proceeded on separate tracks, resulting in
termination judgments on one of the tracks in June 2016,
id., while permanency judgments for the other cases
were being appealed and were ultimately reversed. M. J.
H., 278 Or.App. at 614. As a result of that reversal,
the juvenile court set aside the 2016 termination judgments
and consolidated the two tracks of dependency cases. At a
second termination trial, mother moved to dismiss
jurisdiction and wardship as to all three children; the
juvenile court denied those motions and entered judgments of
has a long history of using drugs, neglecting the
children's physical and medical needs, keeping the
children in filthy living conditions, and being involved in
violent relationships. She also has been physically violent
with the children and has mental health issues. She made some
progress in addressing some of these issues in the year
before trial but did not exhibit good understanding of how
her past behavior has affected the children and still
history of substance abuse dates back as early as 2000. In
October 2012, while pregnant with A, mother was reportedly
using drugs in front of her children at an emergency shelter.
She was admitted to a residential facility for
methamphetamine detoxification in August [297 Or.App. 731]
2013. More recent drug use is unclear. In early 2015, mother
claimed abstinence from prescription opioids for over a year.
During a drug and alcohol treatment assessment in November
2015, mother falsely denied ever using amphetamine and
opiates and was diagnosed with opioid use disorder. Between
November 2015 and October 2016, mother gave 79 UAs, all
negative, but had three no-shows and two dilute UAs, and her
treatment provider did not know if mother had a relapse plan
in place. In August 2016, mother told Dr. Basham that she had
started using methamphetamine at age 28 ...