State ex rel. Juvenile Dept. of Multnomah County v. McMaster

• Decision Date: 04 September 1974
• Citation: 18 Or.App. 1,523 P.2d 604
• Parties: In the Matter of McMaster, Linda, a child. STATE ex rel. JUVENILE DEPARTMENT OF MULTNOMAH COUNTY, Respondent, v. Eddie and Nadine McMASTER, parents of Linda McMaster, Appellants.
• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals

Page 604

523 P.2d 604

18 Or.App. 1

In the Matter of McMaster, Linda, a child.

STATE ex rel. JUVENILE DEPARTMENT OF MULTNOMAH COUNTY, Respondent, v. Eddie and Nadine McMASTER, parents of Linda McMaster, Appellants.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Argued and Submitted May 21, 1974.

Decided June 17, 1974.

Rehearing Denied July 24, 1974.

Review Denied Sept. 4, 1974.

Deane Sterndale Bennett, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellants.

Betsy Welch, Senior Deputy Dist. Atty., Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief was Harl Haas, Dist. Atty., Portland.

Before SCHWAB, C.J., and LANGTRY and THORNTON, JJ.

LANGTRY, Judge.

On October 31, 1973 the juvenile court terminated parental rights to the seven-year-old child Linda, after a hearing in August 1973. This is the parents' appeal from that judgment. The child had been made a ward of the court in June 1972, after hearing and based upon a petition dated December 8, 1972. The June 1972 hearing and another in January 1973 had resulted in continuing foster care for the child, and the court set up detailed and specific warnings in the order after each hearing as to the steps the parents must take to avoid termination. The only question on appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence presented at the August 1973 hearing upon which to terminate the parental rights.

The same parents had previously had their parental rights terminated with reference to an older sister of Linda named Anna. That decision was affirmed in this court, State v. McMaster, 4 Or.App. 112 476 P.2d 814 (1970), and reversed in the Oregon Supreme Court, 259 Or. 291, 486 P.2d 567 (1971). In the latter case the Supreme Court said:

'* * * We are only deciding that the McMasters parental rights cannot be terminated At this time * * *.

'We are of the opinion that the state of the McMaster family is duplicated in hundred of thousands of American families,--transiency and incapacity, poverty and instability. * * * When the legislature used the phrase, 'seriously detrimental to the child,' we believe that they had in mind a more serious and uncommon detriment than that caused by the conduct of parents such as the McMasters. The best interests of the child are paramount; however, the courts cannot sever the McMasters' parental rights when many thousands of children are being raised under basically the same circumstances as this child. The legislature had in mind conduct substantially departing from the norm * * *.' (Emphasis supplied.) 259 Or. at 303--304, 486 P.2d at 572. ¹

After the previous decision was reversed, the McMasters gave their consent to Anna's adoption by the foster parents who had raised her.

It was noted in our previous opinion that a younger child, Linda, was in the McMaster home. This child was made the subject of several petitions filed in the juvenile court, the last ones of which culminated in the case at bar. The evidence in the record indicates that the public agencies which worked with the McMasters and their child Linda expended unbelievable amounts of professional time, care, money ² and guidance in attempting to help the McMaster parents accept and meet adequate responsibility for rearing their children. The circuit court's findings of fact supported by the record made in this case show that the following have attempted to aid the McMasters in the fulfillment of their responsibilities: eight named hospitals in Portland, two in The Dalles, Dammasch State Hospital and the U.S. Veterans' Administration Hospital; 37 named public and private welfare agencies have extended their services to the parents. Included therewith were almost constant welfare grants in one form or another; 32 named physicians; two named probation officers; two named ministers; and five named hospital counselors. The parents also borrowed $5 for bus fare from the trial judge at one of the hearings.

Dr. Carl V. Morrison, child psychiatrist, saw Linda on several occasions. The history he testified to concerning the McMaster parents contained the following:

'* * * Edward comes from a family where there's mental illness. He comes from a family where there's alcoholism, which was reflected as a child all during his growth period.

'He did not have the support nor the consistent help and training that a child does need. In other words, he was not able to complete his emotional growth.

'We found that Nadine had similarly grown up in a series of foster homes. She had not been permitted to be adopted by a family that did wish to adopt her; yet her normal--her regular family did not visit or express an interest in her. This left her in limbo, and it's my professional opinion that this did contribute to her present insecurity.'

Mrs. Janet Reid, Children's Services Division caseworker in Multnomah County who is assigned the most troubled child welfare cases in that department, testified:

'* * * (T)hey have received more services than any others have of my other clients, and their problems are more severe than my other clients.'

She also testified that she spent from one-third to one-half of her time working with this one family while Linda was in her parents' home. A welfare caseworker from The Dalles testified that, when the parents left Portland and resided for a time in Wasco County after Linda had been removed from them, she spent more time with the McMasters than with any other of her clients. Dr. Morrison testified:

'* * * The thing that is amazing to me is the tenacity and the long suffering work that has been done by this agency; namely, the Children's Services.

'In my professional experience, I've never seen anybody proceed with more courage, for going at it again, giving full credence to the philosophy, working and laboring with parents to the fullest extent of their capacity.'

The professionals who worked with the case testified that when concentrated work and resources are brought to bear on a case as was done here progress usually results. But with the McMasters, as Mrs. Reid put it,

'They are just absolutely the same. Nothing has changed.

'* * *

'* * * Most of the time they are not even able to take care of themselves.

'* * *

'* * * These people go off and leave a dog shut up in the house for three days with no food and water and they can't take care of a dog, let alone a kid.'

Much more could be said with reference to the opinions of the professionals who worked with the family. Suffice it to say, they are unanimous in their belief that there is no indication that the McMasters will ever improve except for a few weeks in advance of a hearing before the court when they seem to be able to pull themselves together in a sporadic effort. This record is not like that of thousands of other parents or even hundreds or dozens of other parents who neglect their children. It is worse.

The record is replete with specific instances of inadequacy. It is replete with descriptions of drunkenness on the part of the husband, fighting between the husband and wife (the last instance being in May 1973, two months before the last hearing, when the husband sought out his wife from whom he had been separated, and while drunk had beaten her), inability of the wife to keep anything except a filthy house, utter failure of the husband to get and keep a job, taking welfare money to make a trip or buy liquor, other misuse of welfare money to the point where the welfare department would allow assistance only by way of paying for groceries that were actually used, evictions from various homes and apartments, etc. On one occasion they received $1,000 in a lump sum social security payment when a relative died. In two months they 'blew it all' and still owed '$142 to a veterinarian for care on a stray cat they took in.' Within a month after that they were evicted from their home, had their lights turned off, and had no food. On one occasion the child Linda had her leg placed in a cast by a physician and the father cut the cast off--for what reason is unclear.

The chaotic life of the McMasters was such that in March 1972 Linda was removed from the home and placed with a foster family. Arrangements were made for the parents to visit with her at a Child Management facility. Often they failed to appear for these visitations and on at least one occasion they tried to cash in the bus tickets that were given them to go to the facility.

The child was precocious and had an understanding far beyond what might be expected of a child of her years. She simply changed her last name of her own volition. The parents' visitations with her were upsetting and finally were terminated. Dr. Morrison testified:

'She could recall that her father had been frequently drunk. She recalled there had been fights between both parents and sometimes there was no food. She herself expressed the feeling that she would have to take care of her parents if she returned.

'* * *

'* * * It can be destructive to the point where I feel that there is almost a hundred percent chance that if these contacts are to be continued, that these children will become either delinquent or emotionally sick themselves to a serious extent, or they will be both. (Dr. Morrison had previously been in contact with Anna.)

'* * *

'It's my professional opinion if we do not set up situations so this child can have a very good, stable ongoing situation from now on, she will surely become a considerable difficulty as well as her parents have been.

'* * *

'I think the girl could very well become...