Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.521 (2026)

Conduct of termination hearing

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

419B.521 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 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)(a) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, the termination of parental rights to an Indian child must be supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, including testimony of qualified expert witnesses, that continued custody of the Indian child by the child’s parents is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child.

(b) The court may not enter an order terminating parental rights to an Indian child unless:

(A) The court has offered the parties the opportunity to participate in mediation as required under ORS 419B.517;

(B) If requested by the tribe, and if the Department of Human Services has identified a proposed adoptive placement, an agreement is in place that requires the proposed adoptive placement to maintain connection between the Indian child and the Indian child’s tribe; and

(C) After inquiry as required under ORS 419B.636 and notice as required under ORS 419B.639, and in addition to any other findings required under ORS 419B.500 to 419B.524, the court determines:

(i) That evidence, including the testimony of one or more qualified expert witnesses under ORS 419B.642, establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the continued custody of the Indian child by the child’s parent or custody by the child’s Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the Indian child; and

(ii) That active efforts under ORS 419B.645 to reunite the Indian family did not eliminate the necessity for termination based on serious emotional or physical damage to the Indian child.

(c) The evidence under this subsection must show a causal relationship between the particular conditions in the Indian child’s home and the likelihood that continued custody of the Indian child by the child’s parents will result in serious emotional or physical damage to the particular Indian child who is the subject of the child custody proceeding, as defined in ORS 419B.603. Evidence that shows the existence of community or family poverty, isolation, single parenthood, custodian age, crowded or inadequate housing, substance abuse or nonconforming social behavior does not, by itself, establish a causal relationship as required by this paragraph.

(d) As used in this subsection, “custody” and “continued custody” have the meanings described in ORS 419B.606. [1993 c.33 §145; 1993 c.546 §58; 1995 c.767 §2; 1997 c.873 §9; 2003 c.396 §88; 2020 s.s.1 c.14 §49; 2021 c.398 §64]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 107 cases (28 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: State Ex Rel. State Off. for Servs. to Child. & Families v. Frazier, 955 P.2d 272 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State Ex Rel. State Off. for Servs. to Child. & Families v. Frazier, 955 P.2d 272 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “ORS 419B.521 (1995). In determining whether the state has met its burden of proof for termination under ORS 419B.”

Dep't of Human Servs. v. S.J.M. (In re L.B.M.), 430 P.3d 1021 (Or. 2018). “Among those statutes are ORS 419B.521(1), requiring DHS to prove by clear and convincing evidence "[t]he facts on the basis of which the rights of the parents are terminated;" ORS 419B.”

Dep't of Human Servs. v. K. C. J., 207 P.3d 423 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 13× “ORS 419B.521 provides, in part: “(1) * * * The facts on the basis of which the rights of the parents are terminated, unless admitted, must be established by clear and convincing evidence * * *.”

State Ex Rel. State Off. for Servs. to Child. & Families v. Stillman, 36 P.3d 490 (Or. 2001). “See ORS 419B.521(1) (setting clear and convincing evidence standard).”

State Ex Rel. State Off. for Servs. to Child. & Families v. Mellor, 47 P.3d 19 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “500; ORS 419B.521(1). On de novo review, ORS 419A.”

Dep't of Human Servs. v. D. M. T., 243 P.3d 836 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “As pertinent to our analysis, father contends that his criminal conduct does not present a risk of harm to child and that, given DHS's lack of reasonable efforts to provide sex offender treatment for father before his incarceration and to provide visits between father and child,…”

Dept. of Human Servs. v. M. A. N., 464 P.3d 506 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 4× “504; ORS 419B.521. Mother appeals the court’s judgment terminat- ing her parental rights and alleges 13 assignments of error.”

State v. A. R. H., 530 P.3d 897 (Or. 2023). “, ORS 419B.521(1) (termination of parental rights must be based on facts “estab- lished by clear and convincing evidence”); ORS 426.”

State Ex Rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Radiske, 144 P.3d 943 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “That second part of the test for termination requires the court to evaluate the relative probability that, given particular parental conduct or conditions, the child will become integrated into the parental home within a reasonable time.”

State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Huston, 126 P.3d 710 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “52K1) defines the state’s burden of proof regarding its allegations under ORS 419B.”

Dep't of Human Servs. v. A. L. M., 259 P.3d 17 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “"(6) Criminal conduct that impairs the parent's ability to provide adequate care for the child or ward.”

Dep't of Human Servs. v. H. R. E. (In re H. N. F.), 441 P.3d 726 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “The juvenile court found that DHS had demonstrated unfitness and neglect on all of the remaining allegations, however, and the court entered a judgment terminating mother's parental rights pursuant to ORS 419B.504 and ORS 419B.506. Mother appeals that judgment.”

Show all 107 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.521(1) — 77 cases

State Ex Rel. State Off. for Servs. to Child. & Families v. Stillman, 36 P.3d 490 (Or. 2001). “See ORS 419B.521(1) (setting clear and convincing evidence standard).”

State Ex Rel. State Off. for Servs. to Child. & Families v. Mellor, 47 P.3d 19 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “500; ORS 419B.521(1). On de novo review, ORS 419A.”

Dep't of Human Servs. v. D. M. T., 243 P.3d 836 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “As pertinent to our analysis, father contends that his criminal conduct does not present a risk of harm to child and that, given DHS's lack of reasonable efforts to provide sex offender treatment for father before his incarceration and to provide visits between father and child,…”

State v. A. R. H., 530 P.3d 897 (Or. 2023). “, ORS 419B.521(1) (termination of parental rights must be based on facts “estab- lished by clear and convincing evidence”); ORS 426.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.521(4) — 14 cases

Dep't of Human Servs. v. K. C. J., 207 P.3d 423 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “ORS 419B.521 provides, in part: “(1) * * * The facts on the basis of which the rights of the parents are terminated, unless admitted, must be established by clear and convincing evidence * * *.”

Dept. of Human Servs. v. M. A. N., 464 P.3d 506 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “504; ORS 419B.521. Mother appeals the court’s judgment terminat- ing her parental rights and alleges 13 assignments of error.”

State Ex Rel. State Off. for Servs. to Child. & Families v. Lucas, 33 P.3d 1001 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).

Dep't of Human Servs. v. J. M., 338 P.3d 191 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).

State Ex Rel. State Off. for Servs. to Child. & Families v. Amador, 30 P.3d 1223 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).

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.