Background
Father appealed judgments terminating his parental rights to D and establishing a permanent guardianship over H. He represented himself at trial but did not return after the first day, despite repeated efforts by the juvenile court and others to contact him. The Oregon Department of Human Services then presented a prima facie case in his absence.
On appeal, father argued that the juvenile court improperly allowed mother to testify remotely because ODHS had not provided the advance written notice required by ORS 45.400(2). He also challenged the court’s conclusions that ODHS had proved neglect and that he was unfit to parent the children.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that any error in permitting mother’s remote testimony without the required notice was harmless. Mother had not spoken with father for two years, so her testimony about his conduct was not relevant to the alleged period of neglect. Her testimony concerning unfitness was also cumulative, and ODHS presented ample other evidence that father’s current conduct was seriously detrimental to the children.
The court declined to address father’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting termination and permanent guardianship because those arguments were unpreserved. Father left the hearing, presented no opening or closing argument, and never explained why the court should not end his legal relationship with the children. Because he did not request plain-error review, the appellate court did not reach those claims.
Key Takeaways
- A failure to provide the statutory notice required for remote testimony does not warrant reversal when the testimony was irrelevant to the pertinent period or cumulative of other evidence.
- A self-represented parent must preserve challenges to the asserted grounds for termination or permanent guardianship in the juvenile court.
- An appellate court may decline to consider an unpreserved argument when the appellant does not request plain-error review.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that procedural error involving remote testimony remains subject to harmless-error analysis in juvenile cases. It also underscores the consequences of failing to participate in the hearing and articulate objections, even when a parent is proceeding without counsel.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as permitted by ORAP 10.30(1).