parental-rights-termination

Question(s) Presented: : : oo ; As a matter of state statutory law and federal due process, parents have the right to meaningfully participate in defending against petitions by the state child welfare agency to terminate their parental . rights. in this case, the Oregon Department of Human Services (the department) filed a petition alleging that | Jada Marcum was unfit, and that termination of parental rights (TPR) was in my daughter's best interest. oe : ; oc My TPR trial was conducted on video, over the Oregon courts WebEx platform, during a time : Washington county had restrictions on in-person contact due to the covid-19 pandemic, while D.O.C was : willing to transport me | still did not have an option to go in person for trial even on such a serious : Matter. When Jada Marcum appealed from the TPR judgement, my appellate counsel discovered that ; there were several instances in the transcript where the WebEx system, witness's connections, and video potentially interfered with the courts ability to fully ascertain the entirety of the evidence presented. | Jada Marcum filed a motion to set aside the TPR judgment under ORS 419B.923, citing : those technical lapses as evidence that | Jada Marcum was denied my statutory and due process rights : to a fundamentally fair hearing. The court denied my motion, both as untimely and on the merits. 1. Did the court abuse its discretion in ruling that | Jada Marcum's motion was untimely filed? : 2. Did the court err as a matter of law in ruling that | Jada Marcum failed to state a claim under ORS . 419B.923? , : 3. Did the court err as a matter of law in ruling that the lapses in the record caused by technical difficulties had no effect on | Jada Marcum’s rights or the outcome of the proceeding? 4. Did the court err in not transporting me for in person trial? : Related Cases; Sn ree a 2 oe ao = Dept.-of Human Services v..A.D.G.,, Soe a . : ; ea Ds 2 ; a ore . ae ; oe "260 Or App at 525, 317 P3d 950 (2014) oe a tag eS ee ve peagnisy ech ve : ". Dept. of Human Services v. DJ, mee Ls . a cee ee OE 7 es “259 Or App 638, 314.P3d 998 (2013) CR bey Be og (Dept. of Human Services viLM, ane a 315 Or App 824, 498 P3d 310 (2021) ee es ce re Pe : "| =Dept. of Human Services v. M.LN., oe 8 oo es ; et 3 Se | ©. 312:Or App 730,493 P3d 1127.(20211). eT Ne a ne ce ". ~ Dept..of Human Services v. T.L., oo Dy a oo _ 358 Or 679, 369 P3d 1159 (2016) nae Se ue , " ~State exrel Juv. Dept.v. DJ, a a : 215 Or App 146, 168 P3d 798 (2007) Pee So a Soe 7 _".-State v. Kurtz, . : Se Bo ey Sa te oe Se _ 350 Or 65,249 P3d 1271 (2011) ae Bee