Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.506 (2026)

Termination upon finding of neglect

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      419B.506 Termination upon finding of neglect. The rights of the parent or parents may be terminated as provided in ORS 419B.500 if the court finds that the parent or parents have failed or neglected without reasonable and lawful cause to provide for the basic physical and psychological needs of the child or ward for six months prior to the filing of a petition. In determining such failure or neglect, the court shall disregard any incidental or minimal expressions of concern or support and shall consider but is not limited to one or more of the following:

      (1) Failure to provide care.

      (2) Failure to maintain regular visitation or other contact with the child or ward that was designed and implemented in a plan to reunite the child or ward with the parent.

      (3) Failure to contact or communicate with the child or ward or with the custodian of the child or ward. In making this determination, the court may disregard incidental visitations, communications or contributions. [1993 c.33 §141; 1997 c.873 §8; 2003 c.396 §86; 2023 c.291 §6]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 90 cases (21 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Radiske, 144 P.3d 943 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Radiske, 144 P.3d 943 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 10× “504, and neglect, ORS 419B.506. On de novo review, ORS 419A.”
State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Squiers, 126 P.3d 758 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 10× “504; ORS 419B.506. On de novo review, ORS 419A.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. H. R. E. (In re H. N. F.), 441 P.3d 726 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 7× “504, and neglect, ORS 419B.506. On appeal, mother raises three assignments of error.”
State Ex Rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Rardin, 134 P.3d 940 (Or. 2006). · cites it 5× “504, and that father had neglected child, ORS 419B.506. 1 The trial court reached those conclusions based on father’s alleged failure to provide and implement a plan for integrating child into his home.”
State Ex Rel. State Off. for Servs. to Child. & Families v. Armijo, 950 P.2d 357 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 6× “” ORS 419B.506. Accordingly, we reverse. At the time of the termination hearing in March 1997, mother was 25 years old.”
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dep't v. Johnson, 997 P.2d 231 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “After a week-long trial in the first week of February 1999, the trial court entered judgment, terminating mother and father’s parental rights to the six older children under ORS 419B.”
State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Keeton, 135 P.3d 378 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 5× “504, and that mother failed or neglected to provide for the basic physical and psychological needs of the children for the six months prior to the filing of the petition, ORS 419B.506. On de novo review, ORS 419A.”
State Ex Rel. State Off. for Servs. to Child. & Families v. Mellor, 47 P.3d 19 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “504, and neglect, ORS 419B.506, SCF pursues only the unfitness ground on appeal.”
State Ex Rel. State Off. for Servs. to Child. & Families v. Frazier, 955 P.2d 272 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “504 (1995) or ORS 419B.506 (1995) in order to terminate parental rights.”
State Ex Rel State Off. for Servs. to Child. & Families v. Reynolds, 941 P.2d 1059 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 6× “At the time of the hearing, father had not seen the children in over four years and owed $5,000 in support. After the hearing, the juvenile court entered a judgment granting father's motion.”
State Ex Rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. R. T., 209 P.3d 390 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “504, and, with regard to father, on the ground that he neglected the child, ORS 419B.506. On de novo review, ORS 419A.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. N. H., 520 P.3d 424 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “” Because there were not enough safety services in place to ensure an in-home plan, and because mother was unable to follow directions from hospital staff and nurses regarding S’s medical needs, about 10 days after S’s birth, 1 Mother assigns error to the sufficiency of the…”
Show all 90 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.506(1) — 5 cases
State Ex Rel. State Off. for Servs. to Child. & Families v. Armijo, 950 P.2d 357 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “” ORS 419B.506. Accordingly, we reverse. At the time of the termination hearing in March 1997, mother was 25 years old.”
State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. R. N. L., 180 P.3d 704 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
Dept. of Human Servs. v. J. J. / E. S., 347 Or. App. 555 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
State Ex Rel. Dhs v. Rnl, 180 P.3d 704 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
Dept. of Human Servs. v. J. J. / E. S., 347 Or. App. 555 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.506(2) — 2 cases
State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Squiers, 126 P.3d 758 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “504; ORS 419B.506. On de novo review, ORS 419A.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. M. L. M., 477 P.3d 1232 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.