Dept. of Human Services v. T. M. F.

536 November 12, 2026 No. 1090 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of M. M. F., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. T. M. F., aka T. M. K. F., Appellant. Lane County Circuit Court 24JU02635; A189939 (Control) In the Matter of D. A. B. F., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. T. M. K. F., aka T. M. F., Appellant. Lane County Circuit Court 24JU02639; A189940 Karrie K. McIntyre, Judge. Submitted August 19, 2026. G. Aron Perez-Selsky filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Solicitor General, and Kyleigh Gray, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, Joyce, Judge, and Hellman, Judge. ORTEGA, P. J. Affirmed. Cite as 354 Or App 536 (2026) 537 538 Dept. of Human Services v. T. M. F. ORTEGA, P. J. Mother appeals from a judgment terminating her parental rights to her two daughters, D and M, who were four and six years old respectively at the time of the termi- nation trial.1 On appeal, mother challenges only the juve- nile court’s determination that termination of her parental rights was in the best interests of the children. In support of her argument, she asserts that the children are attached to her and that severing the legal relationship would threaten their mental and emotional well-being. She also contends that Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS) failed to adequately consider familial placement options that would enable the children to maintain a safe and stable home without severing their connection to their extended biological family. Although not all the evidence offered by ODHS is helpful to our analysis, we ultimately conclude that clear and convincing evidence establishes that termination of mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the juvenile court. We review de novo a judgment in a termination of parental rights proceeding. ORS 19.415(3); ORS 419A.200(6). However, we give “considerable weight” to demeanor-based credibility findings, because the juvenile court judge had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor in evaluating the credibility of their testimony. Dept. of Human Services v. T. L. B., 294 Or App 514, 516, 432 P3d 343 (2018), rev den, 365 Or 556 (2019). We begin with the facts necessary to understand our disposition. M was born in February 2019, and D was born in December 2020. The children first came to the atten- tion of ODHS in the fall of 2022 due to concerns regarding parental substance abuse. At that time, D was at OHSU Doernbecher Children’s Hospital receiving treatment for leukemia. During D’s hospital stay, mother appeared to be under the influence of controlled substances. In February 2023, the juvenile court found D within its jurisdiction based on mother’s admissions that her substance abuse and residential instability posed a current threat of serious loss 1 The parental rights of D’s legal father were terminated upon his default, and he is not a party to this appeal. M has no legal father. Cite as 354 Or App 536 (2026) 539 or injury to D. In April of that year, the juvenile court also found M within its jurisdiction based on mother’s admission that her substance abuse interferes with her ability to safely parent. A year later, in April 2024, the juvenile court changed the children’s permanency plans from reunification to adoption, and the following month, ODHS filed petitions to terminate mother’s parental rights. The petitions alleged unfitness due to mother’s substance abuse, failure to adjust her circumstances and acquire necessary parenting skills, and other grounds. At the termination trial in October 2025, the court heard testimony from mother as well as from psychologist Dr. Erik Sorensen (who conducted evaluations of both chil- dren), the children’s therapist, one of their resource parents, ODHS caseworkers, and mother’s sisters. The court also received documentary evidence, including the children’s psychological evaluations. Sorensen diagnosed D with attention deficit hyper- activity disorder and language disorder. He testified that she did not evince a predominant connection to one care- giver or family, which he found unusual, and he further noted that D was excited about the possibility of joining a new family. According to Sorenson, D needs permanency in a safe and stable home, with a caregiver who can reliably provide for her, particularly one familiar with and capable of addressing her heightened medical needs. Sorensen diagnosed M with adjustment disor- der with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. He indicated that the adjustment disorder is evident from frequent angry out- bursts that he believes are connected to trauma that M has experienced and also pointed to “rather substantial disrup- tion in [M’s] capacity to inhibit impulsive behavior, to sus- tain attention, [and] to complete tasks * * *.” Sorensen testified regarding features of M’s attach- ment to mother that he considered troubling, noting that M evinced interest in and attachment to mother but also expressed awareness that mother had not provided for her 540 Dept. of Human Services v. T. M. F. and her sister effectively and that they needed better care. M asserted during the evaluation that she did not want to return to living with mother if mother could not demonstrate a greater capacity to feed, house, and care for her and her sister. Sorensen opined that, for M, a delay in permanency could lead to confusion, distress, and difficulty managing impulsivity, and might impede her development. Sorensen recommended adoption over guardian- ship for M based on his opinion that it “offers a sense of connection and permanence that extends beyond childhood” and expressed the view that guardianship would leave open “lots of questions about what’s going to happen down the road,” which can create “a great deal of uncertainty” for a child. He expressed generalized concerns for how a child in a guardianship might feel a need to take care of the biologi- cal parent’s feelings. Victoria Heater, the children’s therapist, also testi- fied. She had been treating M since May 2023 and D since July 2023. At different points in her testimony, Heater described M’s relationship with mother as disordered, dependent, and a reactive attachment. Heater explained that M feels the need to take care of mother and worries about who will care for mother if she does not. Heater also testified that M’s relationship with mother presents a high risk of negatively affecting M’s ability to form secure and healthy attachments. She testified that M’s behavior sug- gests oppositional defiant disorder, which in Heater’s opin- ion is exacerbated by her lack of a secure attachment with mother. In contrast, Heater observed that M’s attachment with resource parents, who are the intended adoptive place- ment for both children, is positive, and that M connected to them and their family. Heater also testified about the relationship between D and mother, noting that D “doesn’t bring up mom at all” in therapy sessions. According to Heater, D’s attachment to the resource parents is “even stronger than [M’s] attachment.” Heater opined that adoption would be in the children’s best interests, though her understanding of adoption in contrast to other options such as a guardianship did not reflect an accurate understanding of the law. Cite as 354 Or App 536 (2026) 541 One of the children’s resource parents also testi- fied at trial. She testified that, after visits with mother, M “generally seems happy” to see the resource parents and is “ready to go,” and D becomes more dysregulated. She testi- fied that M exhibits some challenging behaviors related to her trauma, including “episodes where she * * * will kind of have a screaming fit for a couple of hours” when she does not get her way. She testified that when D first came into their home, she was dysregulated, would often become overstimu- lated, and was difficult to understand. However, with speech therapy, her communication improved. She also requires frequent appointments at OHSU and is often sick due to her history of leukemia. The resource parent expressed that she and her spouse do not want to prevent all contact with the children’s family of origin and stated that, as long as con- tact is safe and in the children’s best interest, they are open to maintaining connections with mother and her family, including her sisters. ODHS family time coordinator Tara Ellison described the bond between M and mother as strong, but she observed that, when mother evinced sadness about missing out on experiences with the children, M would tell her mother that she would not go to the new resource home if mother did not want her to. Ellison’s observations did not suggest to her that mother and D share a strong connection. She further testified, consistently with the reports of others including M, that mother frequently fell asleep during visits and was hard to wake up. Mother’s sister, RG, testified that she wanted to be a placement option for the children, though she was in the process of adopting three other foster children. She testified that she was told by ODHS that two of the children cur- rently in her care would need to be removed if D was placed with her. RG testified that she had met D once and had never met M. Mother’s other sister, GE, testified that she would “potentially” be interested in serving as a resource placement for the children. She testified that she had met D once many years before and had never met M. ODHS certifier Erica Johnson testified that, at the time ODHS was considering placement options, RG was a 542 Dept. of Human Services v. T. M. F. single foster parent in the process of adopting three foster children. Johnson testified that there were concerns at the time about RG’s ability to meet the special needs of the chil- dren who were in her care. She noted that D’s medical needs require a heightened level of care, which she did not believe RG would have been able to provide at the time placement options were being considered. ODHS caseworker Myah Nyblom testified that, at the beginning of the case, she attempted to locate and place the children with family members. She indicated that GE had never responded to her requests and that she had also sent out letters to other family members, including mother’s other siblings, but did not receive a response. ODHS caseworker Janelle Smith testified that one of mother’s brothers, LF, was identified as part of the rela- tive search and did initially express interest, but later he changed his mind about serving as a placement for the chil- dren. Smith contacted him again after the permanency plan was changed, but he confirmed that he did not wish to be considered as a placement option. At the end of trial, the juvenile court found that ODHS had demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that mother was unfit, that integration into mother’s home within a reasonable time was improbable for both children, and that it was in their best interests for mother’s parental rights to be terminated. On appeal, mother does not challenge the juvenile court’s conclusion that she is unfit or that integration of M and D into her home within a reasonable time is improbable. She argues only that ODHS failed to prove that termina- tion is in the children’s best interests and that ODHS failed to adequately consider familial placement options, which would have prevented severing the children’s connection to their extended family. ORS 419B.500 provides that parental rights may be terminated “only * * * if the court finds it is in the best interest of the ward.” That determination is focused on the needs of the child. Dept. of Human Services v. T. M. D., 365 Or 143, 166, 442 P3d 1100 (2019). We will not assume that Cite as 354 Or App 536 (2026) 543 severing a child’s legal relationship with a parent deemed to be legally unfit is in a child’s best interest without evidence. Dept. of Human Services v. M. H., 306 Or App 150, 164, 473 P3d 1152, 1159 (2020). The “assessment of a child’s best interest must be child-centered,” taking into consideration the unique circumstances of each case. T. M. D., 365 Or at 166; see also Dept. of Human Services v. J. S. E. S., 315 Or App 242, 244, 501 P3d 556 (2021), rev den, 369 Or 209 (2022) (court’s best interest determination is “focused on the needs of the child”). In assessing whether termination of the legal rela- tionship is in a child’s best interest, we consider “(1) the strength of the bond between the parent and child; (2) whether severing that bond will help or harm the child; (3) the benefits to the child of terminating parental rights; and (4) the risk of harm to the child posed by termination.” Dept. of Human Services v. L. M. B., 321 Or App 50, 53, 515 P3d 927 (2022). “Ultimately, * * * we must be able to determine with confidence that the benefits to the child of ending the child’s legal relationship with a parent outweigh the risk of harm posed to the child by severing that legal relationship.” Dept. of Human Services v. N. H., 322 Or App 507, 520, 520 P3d 424, rev den, 370 Or 694 (2022) (citing L. M. B., 321 Or App at 53 (internal quotation marks omitted)). Viewing the record in its totality, we are persuaded that clear and convincing evidence establishes that termina- tion of mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best inter- est. At the outset, we note that both Sorensen and Heater incorrectly testified to an understanding that adoption is more permanent than guardianship. We have consistently rejected that assertion. See T. M. D., 365 Or at 164-65 (reject- ing the view that adoption offers more permanency than guardianship); see also Dept. of Human Services v. D. E. P., 315 Or App 566, 570, 502 P3d 764 (2021) (rejecting, in light of T. M. D., ODHS’s “oft-repeated argument * * * that adoption is the most permanent option”). Additionally, and proceeding from that flawed understanding, much of the testimony of Sorenson and Heater consisted of vague generalities about children in general, adoption in general, and guardianships in general, without connecting those opinions to specific 544 Dept. of Human Services v. T. M. F. evidence regarding these children and their circumstances, including their relationship with mother. Much of their testi- mony was not helpful to the court as a result. Nevertheless, other evidence, as well as aspects of the testimony of Sorenson and Heater, provide support for our conclusion that it is in the children’s best interest for mother’s rights to be terminated. We first note that the bond and attachment between the children and mother weighs in favor of adoption. While mother and M do have a bonded attachment, the evidence shows that M’s experience of the bond is reactive and anx- ious, that she tends to put mother’s needs above her own, and that she believes she is responsible to care for mother’s needs. For example, M was observed reassuring mother that she would not go to the new resource home if mother did not want her to go but also expressed to Sorensen and Heater an awareness that mother’s care for her is inadequate and a wish not to return to those circumstances. In this specific context, the evidence offers a basis for Sorensen’s general- ized concern about a child in a guardianship feeling a need to take care of the biological parent’s feelings, even if we are not inclined to believe that such a concern is automatically present in every guardianship or that it is likely to result in disruption of the guardianship. Additionally, mother does not evince any insight into the needs of either child and minimizes any concerns about the impact of her behavior on them, including M’s anxiety and her sense that she needs to care for mother. It is hard to imagine mother navigating a guardianship with attention to or even awareness of the need to manage her feelings about it in a way that relieves the children of adult burdens. On this record, we infer that a permanency plan that does not sever mother’s parental rights, such as a guardianship, carries risks of instability for M and her ability to form secure attachments that allow her to rely on adults to manage decisions about what is best for her healthy development. We are persuaded on this record that severing the legal relationship is the option that will best enable M to form secure and healthy attachments, possi- bly even with mother, and to stabilize her behavioral and emotional issues. Thus, the nature of M’s attachment with Cite as 354 Or App 536 (2026) 545 mother and M’s heightened needs for stable attachments weigh in favor of terminating mother’s parental rights. The bond between mother and D is positive but limited. She does not talk about mother in therapy and is excited about the possibility of joining a new family. She lacks a solid attachment to one caregiver, and the record demonstrates that her best interests require forming such a stable and secure attachment. The lack of a strong bond between D and mother, along with the other reasons for con- cern that we have noted about mother’s lack of insight into the children’s needs, weighs in favor of terminating mother’s parental rights on this record. We note further that there is evidence that both children share a healthy bond with resource parents, who are the potential adoptive placement and who evince open- ness to maintaining the children’s connection to mother and their other biological relatives. See M. H., 306 Or App at 161 (a child’s “identified adoptive placement is relevant to the best-interest inquiry in a termination proceeding”). Since M has been with resource parents, her behavioral issues have decreased, and she has begun to form healthier attachments. D also is forming an attachment to her cur- rent resource parents, and her communication has improved and her medical needs are being met. Finally, the children do not have a relationship with mother’s sisters or her other family members. Given the children’s attachment difficulties and the evidence of the harm they would experience if removed from the resource parents, it would not be in the best interest of the children to be placed with mother’s sisters or other relatives and we do not find the extent of ODHS’s efforts to consider moth- er’s relatives as options for placement to provide a basis for reversal of the termination judgment. Having reviewed the record and made our own find- ings de novo, we conclude that the benefits to M and D out- weigh the potential harm associated with terminating the legal relationship with mother. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment terminating mother’s parental rights. Affirmed.