Can someone help me better understand this law?

What would be considered "incidental visitations, communications or contributions"?

Does "is lodged with others" include non-foster care arrangments where the DHS is not involved?

Would this refer to anyone who has petitioned and won custody of the child?

Is it possible to have one parent's rights terminated at one time and have the other's terminated at a different time?

COMMON GROUNDS FOR THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS . . .

14. Extreme Parental Disinterest: We recommend that State law authorize termination of parental rights based on extreme parental disinterest in a child.

Commentary

State law should authorize termination of parental rights when a parent has demonstrated extreme disinterest in a child for 6 months if the child is three or older or three months if the child is less than three. Extreme disinterest means that the parent made only minimal contact or communication with the child. There is no proof of extreme disinterest, however, when a parent did not have the ability or opportunity to maintain greater contacts or involvement with the child. There also is no proof of extreme disinterest when the parent does not know of the child's existence.

The prolonged lack of parent-child contact should be enough to justify termination of parental rights even when it has occurred before a child protection agency has become involved in a case. A parent's intentional failure to maintain contact with a child, occurring without justification and for a prolonged period, demonstrates that the parent is not interested in or committed to the child. If this has occurred before the child protection agency has been involved, the agency should carefully evaluate the appropriateness of developing a reunification plan for that parent. (See Hardin & Lancour, op. cit., 31-37.)

Failure of parents to be actively involved in the lives of their children has a significant impact on their self-esteem and development. All children need their lives stabilized as soon as possible by the establishment of permanent, safe, nurturing care taking arrangements. Recent knowledge about the critical period of a child's development between birth and his or her early years suggests that parental disinterest and neglect will have long term negative consequences for the child's development. As a result, some jurisdictions have adopted shorter time frames for parental disinterest based on the age of the child.

Ohio has enacted a statutory ground for termination of parental rights that is generally consistent with this Guideline, except that no time periods are specified. The relevant ground is the following:

The parent has demonstrated a lack of commitment toward the child by failing to regularly support, visit, or communicate with the child while able to do so, or by other actions showing an unwillingness to provide an adequate permanent home for the child.

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2151.414(E)(4) (1998).

Note that the parent need not have totally failed to support, visit, or communicate with the child. Rather, failure to "regularly" support, visit or communicate is sufficient. Note also that parental lack of commitment cannot be shown if the parent was unable to support, visit, or communicate with the child.

Oklahoma's statutory grounds for termination of parental rights based on parental "abandonment" are also essentially consistent with this Guideline. Two of Oklahoma's definitions of abandonment are the following:

[T]he parent has voluntarily left the child alone or in the possession of another who is not the parent of the child and expressed a willful intent by words, actions, or omissions not to return for the child, or

[T]he parent fails to maintain a significant relationship with the child through visitation or communication for a period of six (6) consecutive months out of the last fourteen (14) months immediately preceding the filing of a petition for termination of parental rights. Incidental or token visits or communications shall not be construed or considered in establishing whether a parent has maintained a significant relationship with the child.

Okla. Stat. Ann. Tit. 10 §7006-1.1(A)(2)(b), (c) (1998), as amended by 1998 Okla. Enr. H.B. 2826 §20.

Note that Oklahoma does not set a different time period based on the age of the child and adds a ground based on the clear expression of parental intent to abandon the child.

22. Termination Will Benefit Child: If grounds for termination are found, we recommend that State law require the petitioner to prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that termination of parental rights will affirmatively benefit the child.

Commentary

Where grounds for the termination of parental rights exist, State law should also require proof that termination will affirmatively benefit the child. Termination should be considered beneficial if the child will benefit from adoption or, in unusual cases, where termination is needed because any future contacts between parent and child will be detrimental

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 or pay a reasonable portion of substitute physical care and maintenance if custody is lodged with others.

(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]

109.312 Consent to adoption. (1) Except as provided in ORS 109.314 to 109.329, consent in writing to the adoption under ORS 109.309 of a child shall be given by: (a) The parents of the child, or the survivor of them.

[Parent's consent for the adoption is not required when the parent has deserted or neglected the child.]

109.324 Consent when parent has deserted or neglected child.

(1) If either parent is believed to have willfully deserted the child or neglected without just and sufficient cause to provide proper care and maintenance for the child for one year next preceding the filing of the petition for adoption and such parent does not consent in writing to the adoption, there shall be served upon such parent a citation in accordance with ORS 109.330 to show cause why the adoption of the child should not be ordered. Upon hearing being had, if the court finds that such parent has willfully deserted the child or neglected without just and sufficient cause to provide proper care and maintenance for the child for one year next preceding the filing of the petition for adoption, the consent of such parent at the discretion of the court is not required and, if the court determines that such consent is not required, the court may proceed regardless of the objection of such parent.

(2) In determining whether the parent has willfully deserted the child or neglected without just and sufficient cause to provide proper care and maintenance for the child, the court may disregard incidental visitations, communications and contributions.

(3) In determining whether the parent has willfully deserted the child or neglected without just and sufficient cause to provide proper care and maintenance for the child, the court may consider, among other factors the court finds relevant, whether the custodial parent has attempted, without good cause shown, to prevent or to impede contact between the child and the parent whose parental rights would be terminated in an action under this section.

(4) This section does not apply where consent is given in loco parentis under ORS 109.316 or 109.318. [1957 c.710 §7 (109.312 to 109.329 enacted in lieu of 109.320); 2003 c.576 §147; 2003 c.579 §1]

419B.500 Termination of parental rights; generally. The parental rights of the parents of a ward may be terminated as provided in this section and ORS 419B.502 to 419B.524, only upon a petition filed by the state or the ward for the purpose of freeing the ward for adoption if the court finds it is in the best interest of the ward. If an Indian child is involved, the termination of parental rights must be in compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act. The rights of one parent may be terminated without affecting the rights of the other parent.

419A.004 Definitions. As used in this chapter and ORS chapters 419B and 419C, unless the context requires otherwise

(30) “Ward” means a person within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under ORS 419B.100.

A lot of the stuff I've looked at talks about the court setting up a parenting plan when the bio-family does not have custody. These laws talk about how if the parent is inconsistent in following the parenting plan how that can lead to termination of rights.

If no parenting plan has been ordered, and I have not been approached by either parent to set up any kind of consistent visitation - do I have any responsibility to try to set one up?

boomerang wrote:

A lot of the stuff I've looked at talks about the court setting up a parenting plan when the bio-family does not have custody. These laws talk about how if the parent is inconsistent in following the parenting plan how that can lead to termination of rights.

If no parenting plan has been ordered, and I have not been approached by either parent to set up any kind of consistent visitation - do I have any responsibility to try to set one up?

The idesa of establishing a parenting plan is to provide the family members some continued contact while the parents get their lives together enough for the family to be put back together again as a complete unit. The parents are expected to show that they are doing whatever is deemed necassary in their case to get to a point where the state feels it can back out of the situation and the children won't be harmed any farther.

You certianly have no responsibility to put together a parenting plan for the biological parents and you'd need a licensed social worker to approve and supervise one even if you tried to go that route. From what I've gathered of your situation the ideal here isn't necessarily that the biological family ever be reunited.