## Facts

- A child was born prematurely with serious heart and lung problems and required lengthy neonatal intensive care; she was medically fragile and had special needs.
- The mother was 18, had limited education and unstable housing, and had a volatile, sometimes violent relationship with the child’s father.
- The mother had a prior head injury with seizures and cognitive limits; a psychologist diagnosed an organic personality disorder with passive-aggressive features and initially opined she lacked skills to care for the child upon discharge.
- The psychologist recommended services and supports (parenting training, anger management, psychotherapy, continuing education, and supported living) rather than immediate custody.
- The mother nevertheless visited the child daily in the hospital, spent extended time with her, and interacted with nursing staff about the child’s care.
- The child welfare agency obtained juvenile court jurisdiction, placed the child in foster care, and reduced the mother’s contact to two one-hour supervised visits per week, which the mother attended consistently and on time.
- A later evaluation found both parents interested in parenting but not then able to meet the child’s needs.
- The agency decided to seek termination and did not provide further meaningful training or support aimed at developing the parents’ capacity to care for the child’s special needs.
- Despite limited agency services, the mother pursued counseling and parenting classes, attempted to separate from the father, worked toward a GED, and sought stability.
- By the termination trial, evidence indicated improvement and called into question the early view that the mother’s limitations were irreversible.

## Issues

1. Whether the state proved by clear and convincing evidence that the mother was unfit due to conduct or conditions seriously detrimental to the child.
2. Whether the state proved by clear and convincing evidence that integration of the child into the mother’s home was improbable in the foreseeable future because the mother’s inability to meet the child’s needs was unlikely to change.

## Decision

- The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the judgment terminating the mother’s parental rights.
- The court accepted that the mother was not capable of independently caring for the medically fragile infant at the time of early evaluations.
- The court held the state did not clearly and convincingly prove the mother’s inability was unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
- The court gave weight to the mother’s consistent visitation, sustained efforts at self-improvement, and evidence of progress over time.
- The court relied on the agency’s failure to provide recommended services and supports as weakening the claim that the mother’s limitations were not likely to change.

## Legal Principles

- Parental rights may be terminated under ORS 419B.504 only if the parent is unfit due to conduct or conditions seriously detrimental to the child and integration into the home is improbable in the foreseeable future because the conduct or conditions are not likely to change.
- The state must prove the statutory grounds by clear and convincing evidence.
- A mental or cognitive impairment does not alone establish unfitness; the controlling inquiry is whether the parent can meet the child’s physical and emotional needs within a reasonable time, including with appropriate training and supports.
- Evidence of later improvement can undermine reliance on earlier, pessimistic assessments when the statute requires a finding about future change.
- Where recommended reunification-oriented services are not meaningfully provided, proof that a parent’s limitations are effectively permanent may be insufficient.

## Conclusion

The appellate court reversed termination because the record did not clearly and convincingly show that the mother’s inability to care for her special-needs child was unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, particularly given her demonstrated progress and the agency’s limited provision of recommended supportive services.


State ex rel. Children’s Servs. Div. v. Brady, 135 Or. App. 332, 899 P.2d 691 (Or. Ct. App. 1995)