2017 ORS 419B.502¹
Termination upon finding of extreme conduct

The rights of the parent or parents may be terminated as provided in ORS 419B.500 (Termination of parental rights generally) if the court finds that the parent or parents are unfit by reason of a single or recurrent incident of extreme conduct toward any child. In such case, no efforts need to be made by available social agencies to help the parent adjust the conduct in order to make it possible for the child or ward to safely return home within a reasonable amount of time. In determining extreme conduct, the court shall consider the following:

(1) Rape, sodomy or sex abuse of any child by the parent.

(2) Intentional starvation or torture of any child by the parent.

(3) Abuse or neglect by the parent of any child resulting in death or serious physical injury.

(4) Conduct by the parent to aid or abet another person who, by abuse or neglect, caused the death of any child.

(5) Conduct by the parent to attempt, solicit or conspire, as described in ORS 161.405 (“Attempt” described), 161.435 (Solicitation) or 161.450 (“Criminal conspiracy” described) or under comparable laws of any jurisdiction, to cause the death of any child.

(6) Previous involuntary terminations of the parent’s rights to another child if the conditions giving rise to the previous action have not been ameliorated.

(7) Conduct by the parent that knowingly exposes any child of the parent to the storage or production of methamphetamines from precursors. In determining whether extreme conduct exists under this subsection, the court shall consider the extent of the child or ward’s exposure and the potential harm to the physical health of the child or ward. [1993 c.33 §139; 1995 c.767 §1; 1997 c.873 §5; 1999 c.859 §16; 2001 c.575 §1; 2001 c.686 §23; 2003 c.396 §84]

Notes of Decisions

Under Former Similar Statute

“Neglected without just and sufficient cause” requires proof that parent failed to perform parental duties for re­quired statutory period and that neglect was voluntary. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Draper, 7 Or App 497, 491 P2d 215 (1971), Sup Ct review denied; State ex rel Juvenile Dept., Marion County v. Mack, 12 Or App 570, 507 P2d 1161 (1973)

Continuing rela­tionship with child abuser can be grounds for termina­tion. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Herman, 69 Or App 705, 687 P2d 812 (1984)

Notes of Decisions

Under Former Similar Statutes

Due process does not require the appoint­ment of “independent counsel” to represent the child in every adop­tion or termina­tion of parental rights pro­ceed­ing. F. v. C., 24 Or App 601, 547 P2d 175 (1976)

When sec­ond termina­tion of parental rights pro­ceed­ing was not itself barred, proof was not limited by res judicata or collateral estoppel principles to facts or evidence which was not considered in or which came in to being after first pro­ceed­ing. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Newman, 49 Or App 221, 619 P2d 901 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

Chapter 419B

Notes of Decisions

Due process rights of parents are al­ways implicated in construc­tion and applica­tion of pro­vi­sions of this chapter. Depart­ment of Human Services v. J.R.F., 351 Or 570, 273 P3d 87 (2012)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 419B—Juvenile Code: Dependency, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors419B.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 419B, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano419B.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.