2017 ORS 419B.521¹
Conduct of termination hearing

(1) The court shall hold a hearing on the question of terminating the rights of the parent or parents. The court may not hold the hearing any earlier than 10 days after service or final publication of the summons. The facts on the basis of which the rights of the parents are terminated, unless admitted, must be established by clear and convincing evidence and a stenographic or other report authorized by ORS 8.340 (Reporter’s duties) shall be taken of the hearing.

(2) Not earlier than provided in subsection (1) of this section and not later than six months from the date on which summons for the petition to terminate parental rights is served, the court before which the petition is pending shall hold a hearing on the petition except for good cause shown. When determining whether or not to grant a continuance for good cause, the judge shall take into consideration the age of the child or ward and the potential adverse effect delay may have on the child or ward. The court shall make written findings when granting a continuance.

(3) The court, on its own motion or upon the motion of a party, may take testimony from any child appearing as a witness and may exclude the child’s parents and other persons if the court finds such action would be likely to be in the best interests of the child. However, the court may not exclude the attorney for each party and any testimony taken under this subsection shall be recorded.

(4) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, if an Indian child is involved, termination of parental rights must be supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, including testimony of qualified expert witnesses, that continued custody of the child is likely to result in serious emotional or physical harm to the child. [1993 c.33 §145; 1993 c.546 §58; 1995 c.767 §2; 1997 c.873 §9; 2003 c.396 §88]

Notes of Decisions

Under Former Similar Statute

In termina­tion of parental rights pro­ceed­ing, court may refuse to allow parent to call child as witness on parent’s behalf. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Beasley, 314 Or 444, 840 P2d 78 (1992)

In General

Where Indian child is involved, all facts that form basis for termina­tion of parental rights are subject to beyond reasonable doubt standard. Depart­ment of Human Services v. K.C.J., 228 Or App 70, 207 P3d 423 (2009)

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.