Did the Supreme Court of Oregon have the opportunity to consider every possible situation which might arise from a Termination of Parental Rights?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Did the Supreme Court of Oregon have the opportunity to consider every possible situation which might arise from a Termination of Parental Rights? No. The agency must consider every possible situation and clearly refused to consider that the Petitioner’s health might improve, his diagnosis might change, his housing might improve, and neither did the agency consider that the child does know the Petitioner and will realize that the petitioner no longer sends packages, no longer telephones, no longer visits-and might even assume wrongly that something tragic has occurred. The agency presents nothing to counter such arguments and does not deserve the sought for deference. Miccosuke Tribe of Indians of Florida vs United States (11 Circuit 2009) 566 F3.d 2157, 1264 No. Reform to the Chevron Doctrine states that the arguments presented in a county courtroom are not specifically formed to be evaluated by a higher court and that arguments seeking to trump law with law or to act with the force of law are only opinions. Christensen vs Harris County (2000) 529 US 576, 587 And No. The agency rejects the concept of the future in general and rejects the idea that the child may one day have severe issues and at that point in time have no family history and also have no natural parent available, favoring to involve complaints from grandparents-the right to be a parent is injured by this. Troxel vs Granville (2000) 530 US 57 2. Did the Supreme Court of Oregon weighed the Petitioner’s own explanation of his health with deference? No. The Supreme Court of Oregon shows no explanation nor opinion. Christensen vs Harris County (2000) 529 US 576, 587 And No. The right to self expression was ignored. First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 3. Did the Department of Human Services properly apply the statute providing a Termination of © Parental Rights? No. Reform to the Chevron Doctrine in and of itself was in response to the irresponsible lawmaking by agencies who find a law vague-no equivalent accusations to those of 2017 ORS 419B.498 Termination of parental rights 1(b) was ever made and the woeful state of 2017 ORS 419B.504 Termination upon finding of unfitness was only alleged in conjunction with complaints by grandparents and alleged event now twenty years in the past. The agency produced no record at all. The Chevron Doctrine Reform, 114 Congress Second Session serial 114-68 90 4. How shall the Petitioner proceed in the State of California? Most likely he cannot. The Petitioner has had no contact with his daughter for nearly two full years and has no information as to her whereabouts, any change in name, any change in Jocation, nor any change in status. The petitioner has no safe or protected contact for the future and safety of the child, voiceless another blow to the right to Freedom of Speech. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. 5. Who is “Jonathan Engwall Callejon” or “J.E.C.” and was he treated fairly? 10. No such person exists. My name is Jonathan Engwall. At the time of the termination hearing “callejon L” was part of my home address. Certainly I cannot have been treated fairly and ] am protected from such slander and the termination made of me a child murderer. When I am not, was not accused nor tried as such, was simply punished! First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Universal Declaration of Human Rights.