Background
The Oregon Department of Human Services petitioned to terminate father’s parental rights to his child, R. Father appeared in juvenile court and denied the petition’s allegations. After he later missed a pretrial conference, the court ordered him to appear personally for the termination trial and warned that his rights could be terminated in his absence.
Father did not appear at trial despite legally sufficient service. ODHS presented a prima facie case, including testimony from a caseworker whom the juvenile court expressly found credible, and the court terminated father’s parental rights. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a brief under ORAP 5.90 and State v. Balfour asserting initially that the judgment was entered for want of an answer and therefore was not appealable. The Court of Appeals struck that brief because father had appeared and denied the allegations, meaning the judgment was not entered for want of an answer, and counsel then filed an amended Balfour brief.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. After reviewing the record, trial-court file, hearing transcripts, and amended Balfour brief, the court found no arguably meritorious issue requiring supplemental briefing or providing a basis to disturb the termination judgment.
The court noted that it generally defers to demeanor-based credibility findings even when reviewing de novo, and the juvenile court had expressly credited the ODHS caseworker. It also explained that de novo review ordinarily does not permit consideration of unpreserved issues, and father had preserved none. Given those constraints, the court found no arguable procedural or substantive ground for reversal.
Key Takeaways
- A termination judgment is not entered “for want of an answer” under ORS 19.245(2) when a parent appeared in response to the summons and denied the petition’s allegations, even if the parent later failed to attend trial.
- Under Balfour review, the appellate court examines the record for any arguably meritorious issue that would require supplemental briefing.
- Even on de novo review, appellate courts generally defer to demeanor-based credibility findings and decline to consider issues not preserved in juvenile court.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that a parent’s failure to appear at a termination trial does not eliminate appellate review when the parent previously answered the petition. At the same time, it illustrates the difficulty of obtaining reversal when the juvenile court credited the state’s evidence and the parent preserved no issue for appeal.