MCAD Research Bank


State ex rel Juvenile Dept. of Lane County v. Stevens, 100 Or. App. 481 (1990). [In termination proceedings in which father was incarcerated in Washington on a federal conviction, stateís refusal to pay for his appearance in Oregon in person, thus requiring that he testify by telephone, did not violate state and federal constitutional provisions.]

State ex rel Juvenile Department of Multnomah County v. Geist, 310 Or. 176 (1990).  [Mother appeals from a circuit court order terminating her parental rights.  We allowed review to consider her contention that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that it could not review her claim that her appointed trial counsel was inadequate.  we hold that such claims may be reviewed on direct appeal.]

State ex rel Juvenile Dept. of Lane County v. Miglioretto, 88 Or. App. 126 (1987). [Although a parentís emotional or mental incapacity or physical neglect must be directly related to the child before the court, that is not a requirement for termination based on sexual or physical abuse. ORS 419.523(2) does not require that any child remain in an abusive environment until the state can show that abuse of that particular child has occurred. If there is evidence of abuse of any child, the statute permits a court to remove a child permanently from a dangerous situation.]

State ex rel Juvenile Dept. of Multnomah County v. Habas, 299 Or. 177. 700 P.2d 225 (1985). [Held: (1) petition by state to terminate parental rights of natural mother in child was inadequate as failing to follow specific wording of mental illness portion of governing statute and, hence, as failing to allege that mental illness of mother was of such duration as to render it impossible for her to care for child for extended periods of time, and (2) termination of natural motherís parental rights in child was not justified on basis of mental illness absent findings that duration of illness had existed for any specific length of time, or that it would probably continue into future, and that mental illness made it impossible for mother to care for child in future.]

State ex rel Juvenile Dept. of Multnomah County v. Jenkins, 59 Or. App. 702 (1982). [Incarceration alone is rarely enough to warrant parental termination. The additional allegations relied upon by the state, i.e., lack of financial contribution and visitation since motherís death, also appear to be inconclusive as to fatherís fitness as a parent.]

State ex rel Juvenile Dept. of Multnomah County v. Farrell, 58 Or. App. 258 (1982). [Due process is satisfied by de novo review of the pending appeals under a clear and convincing standard, and that remands to the trial courts are not constitutionally required.]

In re Matter of Chapman, 631 P.2d 830 (19__). [Held: State had not shown substantial certainty that parents would not be able to perform parenting role with minimal adequacy where there was total absence of efforts by social agencies to help parents improve parenting abilities, and thus trial court acted precipitously in terminating parental rights.]

State ex rel Juvenile Dept. of Multnomah County, 51 Or. App. 681, 626 P.2d 944 (1981). [Held: evidence was insufficient to support finding that father was an unfit parent by reason of conduct or condition seriously detrimental to child, and thus his parental rights were improperly terminated.]

Matter of Swartzfager/State ex rel Juvenile Dept. of Multnomah County v. Jones, 290 Or. 799, 626 P.2d 882 (1981). [Held: (1) state failed to prove that motherís failure or neglect to provide for needs of daughter for more than one year prior to filing of petition had been without reasonable and lawful cause; (2) in view of testimony that, during eight to ten months immediately before trial, the mother, who suffered from lupus erythematosus, had been able to function normally as mother for her son and had also functioned capably as baby-sitter for other children, state did not prove by preponderance of evidence that mother suffered from illness within statute providing that, in considering whether to terminate parental rights for condition seriously detrimental to child, court shall consider emotional or mental illness of such duration as to render it impossible for parent to care for child for extended periods of time; and 93) state failed to prove that alienation of relations between minor child and her mother was of such nature or degree as to require termination of parental rights.]

State ex rel Juvenile Dept. of Multnomah County v. McDonald, 38 or. App. 399, 590 P.2d 289 (1979). [Held: the juvenile court order would be reversed, since the parents were unfit by reason of conduct or conditions seriously detrimental to the child and since integration of the child into the home of either parent was improbable in the foreseeable future due to conduct or conditions not likely to change; the father was a chronic alcoholic who had failed several treatment programs and whom the child profoundly feared because of her unsuccessful experience in living with him, and the mother had antipathy toward the child since her infancy, having twice placed the child in foster care, having moved with her two younger children to Tacoma to live with a much younger boyfriend, and having rarely visited the child despite opportunities to do so.]

State ex rel Multnomah County Juvenile Dept. v. Anderson, 35 Or. App. 561, 582 p.2d 29 (1978). [Held: although psychiatrists predicted that father would not be able within a year or two to make significant progress in correcting his problems and inadequacies there was insufficient showing to support termination on ground that father was unfit by reason of conduct or condition seriously detrimental to the child, especially since father was genuinely interested in his daughter and had made efforts to adjust his situation so that he could obtain custody.]

State ex rel Juvenile Dept. of Multnomah County v. Wyatt, 34 or. App. 793, 579 P.2d 889 (1978). [Held: evidence that mother had an "antisocial personality" and was more likely than the average person to be abusive to her child some day could not serve as basis for terminating parental rights.]

State ex rel Juvenile Dept. of Multnomah County v. Navarette, 29 Or. App. 121, 563 P.2d 1221 (1977). [Held: there was no due process requirement that service of a notice of appeal upon the children be made a jurisdictional requisite.]

State ex rel Juvenile Dept. of Multnomah County v. Maginnis, 28 Or. App. 935, 561 P.2d 1044 (1977). [Held: the trial court had authority to order a psychiatric or medical evaluation of the mother and to continue the matter until the evaluation was prepared.]

Campbell v. Kindred, 26 Or. App. 771, 554 P.2d 599 (1976). [Held: adoption decree which purportedly terminated parental rights of natural mother was void, notwithstanding statute providing that after expiration of one year after adoption decree no one may question validity of adoption for any reason.]

Swarthout v. Reeves, 26 Or. App. 763, 554 P.2d 617 (1976). [Held: evidence of natural fatherís insubstantial income during the time in question and of the difficulty of developing meaningful relationships with a child of one to three years of age sustained determination that father who had made only minimal contributions to the child and made only infrequent visits had not deserted nor neglected the child without just and sufficient cause.]

State ex rel Juvenile Dept. of Multnomah County v. F.S., 26 Or. App. 209, 552 P.2d 586 (1976). [Held: evidence sustained order terminating motherís parental rights; that mother did not have a right to jury trial on the issue of termination; and that files of the childrenís Services division regarding the child and the mother were admissible.]

State ex rel Juvenile Dept. of Polk County and L.C. v. P.J.P., 26 Or. App. 215, 553 P.2d 584 (1976). [Held: evidence that three-year-old child had been in foster care with the same family since it was four and one-half months old, that mother had associated herself with a motorcycle gang and moved at least nine times in an 18-month period, that mother had worked in massage parlors and given her earnings of up to $1,000 per month to her boyfriend, and that mother had been convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and had attacked a policeman a few days after child was placed in foster care sustained termination of her parental rights.]

State ex rel Washington County Juvenile Dept. v. K.M.S., 26 Or. App. 219, 552 P.2d 578 (1976). [Held: due process did not require that state prove the grounds for termination of parental rights beyond a reasonable doubt; that it was sufficient for the state to show the existence of the grounds by a preponderance of the evidence; and that evidence sustained finding that mother had failed to provide for the basic physical and psychological needs of the children for one year prior to the filing of the termination petition.]

State ex rel Juvenile Dept. of Polk County v. V.J.C., 26 Or. App. 231, 552 P.2d 254 (1976). [Held: file f Childrenís Services Division was admissible as an official record; that admission of testimony of an evaluating psychiatrist was not error, even though mother did not have benefit of counsel prior to her participation in interview which occurred prior to commencement of termination proceedings; and that evidence warranted termination of parental rights of mother in four children.]

F. and F. v. C., 24 Or. App. 601, 547 P.2d 175 (1976). [Held: fact that child was not represented by independent counsel at hearing was not error; that statute providing that adoption may be granted over objection of natural parent imprisoned under sentence of not less than three years, where it will best promote welfare of child, did not deprive imprisoned parent of due process and equal protection of law and was not unconstitutionally vague; and that evidence was sufficient to support finding that childís welfare would be best promoted if maternal grandparents were permitted to become childís legal parents.]

State ex rel Multnomah County Juvenile Dept. v. Greybull, 23 Or. App. 674, 543 P.2d 1079 (1976). [Held: where Indian children had not lived on the reservation and were not claimed ever to have had their domicile on a reservation, the circuit court had jurisdiction over them and their parents for purposes of proceeding for termination of parental rights. Evidence including evidence of alcoholism of the parents sustained the termination. The sole issue was whether the parental rights were correctly terminated, and the question whether the children as Indians would be best raised by Indian family and in particular by their paternal grandparents was not for the courtís consideration in the particular proceeding.]

State ex rel Juvenile Dept. of Lane County v. Crabtree, 23 Or. App. 183, 541 P.2d 1311 (1976). [Held: evidence showing, inter alia, that children had lived away from their father for many year, that childrenís stepmother delivered them to Childrenís services Division, that two older children advised the court that they did not wish o be separated from their father and that father had periodically demonstrated long-term continuing interest in children supported denial of petitions.]

State ex rel Juvenile Dept. of Washington County v. T., 23 Or. App. 513, 543 P.2d 27 (1975). [Held: evidence indicating, inter alia, that the father was a drug addict and was incarcerated was sufficient to support the trial courtís finding that termination of the parental rights of the father was in the best interests of the child.]

State ex rel Juvenile Dept. of Klamath County, 23 Or. App. 295, 541 P.2d 1301 (1975). [Held: parental rights were subject to termination where welfare of child was being jeopardized in that mother, by conduct which had been and was seriously detrimental to child, had demonstrated that she was unfit to continue as parent of child and that integration of child into her home in foreseeable future was improbable due to conduct of mother which was not likely to change.]

State ex rel Juvenile Dept. of Multnomah County v. Wagner, 21 Or. App. 397, 535 P.2d 102 (1975). [Held: in view of basic inadequacy of the mother, alienation of her children from her, suitability of foster care in which the children had been placed due to parental neglect and the improbability that the children could be integrated into the home of the mother in the foreseeable future, the motherís parental rights were properly terminated.]

State ex rel Juvenile Dept. of Clackamas County v. Gonzalez, 21 Or. App. 103, 533 P.2d 1382 (1975). [Held: decision that independent counsel must represent children in all termination proceedings was not retroactive in its application to a proceeding held prior to date of decision; further, parental rights were properly terminated as to mother who, without just cause, neglected children, failed to provide for them, failed to respond as a mother, and did not have ability within foreseeable future to make changes that were necessary to place her in a position of being a mother to children.]

State ex rel Juvenile Dept. of Clackamas County v. Zinzer, 20 Or. App. 688, 533 P.2d 355 (1975). [Held: preponderance of evidence, including evidence establishing that mother suffered from an emotional illness and retardation, that father was somewhat mentally deficient, and that because of these factors it would be impossible for parents to meet needs of children even with extensive assistance, supported termination of parental rights, notwithstanding claim that termination of visitation privileges had made it impossible for the parents to indicate by their conduct what their parental abilities might be.]

Yost v. Phillips, 21 Or. App. 464, 535 P.2d 94 (1975). [Held: mother was entitled to custody where there was no showing that mother was unfit.]

State ex rel Juvenile Dept. of Multnomah County v. Wade, 19 Or. App. 314, 527 P.2d 753 (1974). [Held: children involved in termination of parental rights proceedings must be afforded independent counsel at termination hearing, that statute providing that parental rights may be terminated if there is emotional illness, mental illness, or mental deficiency of the parent of such duration as to render it impossible to care for child for extended period of time is not unconstitutionally vague and indefinite, that evidence failed to establish that state had proceeded in other than a straightforward and "fair" manner, that testimony given by psychiatrist was not subject to challenge on theory that it was based on information obtained from parents in violation of privilege against self-incrimination, that physician-patient privilege did not preclude such psychiatrist, who had never acted as parentsí treating physician, from testifying if his testimony was not based on any information which psychiatrist had obtained from parentsí personal physician and that evidence was sufficient to justify termination of parental rights on theory that mental illness of mother and mental deficiency of father rendered them unable to function as parents.]

State ex rel Juvenile Dept. of Multnomah County v. Dee, 19 Or. App. 193, 526 P.2d 1036 (1974). [Where 40-year-old father had been convicted of 14 offenses, had been imprisoned for 11 of past 22 years, had been addicted to heroin, had not attempted to see 10-year-old child for past six years, including time outside of prison, and though he was soon to be released from prison, showed no signs of being able to accept full parental responsibility soon, termination of fatherís parental rights and commitment to state of 10-year-old girl who had spent seven years in foster homes was not improper.]

State ex rel Juvenile Dept. of Multnomah County v. McMaster, 18 or. App. 1, 523 P.2d 604 (1974). [Evidence supported decision to terminate parental rights of seven-year-old child, whose parents had been given tremendous amount of professional time, care, money and guidance in attempt to help them accept and adequately meet responsibilities for rearing their child, who was found to be precocious and have an understanding far beyond what might be expected of a child of her years and whose parents were found to be incapable of giving her even minimal decent care.]

State ex rel Juvenile Dept. of Multnomah County v. Clampitt/Hale, 18 Or. App 12, 523 P.2d 594 (1974). [Held: the one case that the juvenile court had authority to make a decision and allow or deny, without terminating the childrenís commitment to the Childrenís Services Division, visitation of children with a father who was serving a life sentence for homicide, and the courtís failure to exercise its discretion to make such decision was prejudicial error. In the other case it was held that the juvenile courtís stated policy of refusing to permit children to visit their parents in the penitentiary, especially in the case where one parent has killed the other parent, was disapproved; each case is to be decided on its own merits, and denial of motion for visitation without allowing opportunity to present evidence was prejudicial error.]

State ex rel Juvenile Dept. of Multnomah County v. Redmond, 17 Or. App. 408, 522 P.2d 503 (1974). [Held: evidence established that it was in the best interests of child that the parental rights of mother should be terminated.]

State ex rel Multnomah County Juvenile Dept. v. Birch, 16 Or. App. 227, 517 P.2d 1210 (1974). [Held: such action was justified by the evidence, including the motherís own testimony seemingly supportive of medical testimony that she was schizophrenic, chronic paranoid type.]

Mahoney et ux v. Linder, 14 Or. App. 656, 514 P.2d 901 (1973). [Held: where fatherís counsel had received proper notice of hearings, such notice was binding on the father, that the paternal grandparents did not have standing to contest the adoption, that the court must determine that the father had willfully either deserted or neglected to provide proper care for the children before it could consider the best interests of the children, and that, where the failure of the father to contribute to support of the children and to exercise visitation rights for a period of approximately 15 months was the result of an agreement between the father and the mother was the result of an agreement between the father and the mother that the father would stay away from the children in exchange for the motherís promise not to enforce child support payments, the conduct of the father was not without just and sufficient cause, and would not justify adoption of the children without the fatherís consent.]

State ex rel Juvenile Dept. of Jackson County v. Wilson, 9 Or. App. 468, 497 P.2d 871 (1972). [Held: evidence that mother left state with her paramour, remained in another state with paramour for two years and never visited or contacted her children during that period supported finding that mother willfully deserted her children and neglected without just and sufficient cause to provide proper care and maintenance for her children under statute providing for termination of parental rights.]

State ex rel Juvenile Dept. of Marion County v. Draper, 7 Or. App. 497, 491 P.2d 215 (1972). [Held: where father, who had an average monthly income above poverty level, and who knew that his three-year-old child was in custody of Welfare Commission, deliberately chose to ignore child and had neither seen child nor tried to make any contact with her or those caring for her since she was about four months old, and during that time father had not contributed anything toward childís support, juvenile court properly terminated fatherís parental rights for neglecting, without just or sufficient cause, to provide proper care and maintenance for child for one year.]

State ex rel Juvenile Dept. of Multnomah County v. Robert Lamar, 7 Or. App. 132, 490 P.2s 191 (1971). [Held: where case worker testified that father had made virtually no contact with welfare department over a period of years, and that his relatives also made very little contact, whereas father and his relatives testified that they had made numerous contacts with welfare department seeking visitations with child, parts of case work file relating to contacts made with child over several years should have been made available to fatherís attorney on his cross-examination of case worker, and it was not adequate that case worker extracted from file a memorandum which was less than a half page long and referred only to some efforts made to contact father after first permanent commitment hearing.]

State v. McMaster, 259 Or. 291, 486 P.2d 567 (1971). [Held: statute providing for termination of parental rights if court finds that parent or parents are unfit by reason of conduct or conditions seriously detrimental to child is no unconstitutionally vague, but that evidence did not support juvenile courtís finding that conduct of parents had been seriously detrimental to child within meaning of such statute.]

State v. McMaster, 4 Or. App. 112, 476 P.2d 814 (1970). [Held: under evidence that welfare department cared for child and supported and worked with parents for four years, that parentsí visitations to child in foster home were sporadic and had traumatic effect on child, Court was warranted in terminating parental rights to child.]

Moody et ux v. Voorhies, 257 Or. 105, 475 P.2d 579 (1970). [Held: where natural father was in mental hospital last ten and one-half months of year immediately preceding filing of petition to adopt his son and for other one and one-half months he was in shelter rehabilitation workshop where he had been placed after release from mental hospital, separation of father from child was occasioned by voluntary and court-committed confinement, and apparent abandonment of father-son role was not volitional act; therefore, fatherís consent to adoption of his son was necessary.]

State ex rel Juvenile Dept. of Clackamas County v. Peterson, 3 Or. App. 52, 471 P.2d 853 (1970). [Held: evidence sustained juvenile courtís conclusion that best interest of children who had been declared wards of court warranted continuation of existing placement in foster home rather than return of children to their mother or their present placement with their father.]

State v. Jamison, 251 Or. 114, 444 P.2d 15, 444 P.2d 1005 (1968). [Held: failure to inform indigent mother of her right to court-appointed counsel and to appoint counsel constituted violation of motherís right to due process of law.]

State v. Winters, 243 Or. 313, 413 P.2d 425 (1966). [Held: evidence sustained trial courtís finding that mother was unfit to have custody of her children.]

State v. Grady, 231 Or. 65, 371 P.2d 68 (1962). [Held: evidence was insufficient to establish that mother, who was presently incarcerated, was unfit to continue the parental relationship and was insufficient to support an order permanently termination her parental rights in such infant.]

Simons et ux v. Smith, 299 Or. 277, 366 P.2d 875 (1961). [Held: fatherís objection was binding where trial court could not properly conclude that father had no further parental rights.]

Cutts v. Cutts, 229 Or. 33, 366 P.2d 179 (1961). [Held: trial court exceeded its statutory authority where the divorce decree establishing that the individual was a fit and proper person to have custody had not been attacked or modified, and that the petition for adoption should have been dismissed without prejudice and not denied on the merits.]



1.   Appellantís Brief, arguing, "the trial court erred when it terminated Appellantís parental rights."