ORTEGA, P. J.
Mother appeals from judgments terminating her parental rights to each of her three children, A, Y, and N, based on unfitness, ORS 419B.504.
1
On appeal, mother does not challenge the juvenile courts determination that she is unfit, but argues that the evidence is not sufficient to support the courts determination that termination of her parental rights is in As, Ys, and Ns best interest as required by ORS 419B.500. On de novo review, ORS 19.415(3)(a), we conclude that termination is in the childrens best interests given mothers conduct and mental health conditions, their ongoing effects on the children, the insecurity of their attachment to her, and the reasons for concern regarding mothers capacity to cooperate with a permanent guardianship. Accordingly, we affirm.
Our de novo standard of review for termination cases “requires us to examine the record with fresh eyes to determine whether the evidence developed below persuades us that termination is in [the childrens] best interest,” which the Department of Human Services (DHS) must establish by clear and convincing evidence. Dept. of Human Services v. T. L. M. H., 294 Or App 749, 750, 432 P3d 1186 (2018), rev den, 365 Or 556 (2019).
Based on that standard, we briefly recount the relevant facts, beginning with some background facts. Mothers familys history with DHS began in 2016 when DHS removed A, then mothers only child, from parents’ care when A was about seven months old, based on allegations of failure to thrive. Shortly after As return to mothers care in 2017, DHS again removed A, along with a second child, Y, then six months old, based on allegations which included that parents had exposed the children to domestic violence. Both removals resulted in the juvenile court exercising jurisdiction over the children. A and Y returned to parents’ care in December 2018, after 20 months in substitute care.
Prior to As and Ys return, mother was diagnosed with bipolar II disorder. The evaluator observed, among other things, that mother easily lost her temper and struggled with parenting skills. Mother engaged in services, including parenting classes and dialectic behavioral therapy. The dependency case was closed based on DHSs request, and mother decided to relocate to Ohio with the children to be close to her relatives, including her sister, who helped mother with the children in Ohio and who is the prospective adoptive parent in this case.
Mothers family eventually moved back to Oregon and, in 2020, DHS removed A for a third time, along with Y and N, mothers youngest child, based on allegations that mother physically abused the children. Mother admitted to police that she bit A on the buttocks and occasionally bit the other childrens fingers, and ultimately pled no contest to fourth-degree assault.
2
The juvenile court took jurisdiction over the children, placed them in nonrelative substitute care, and set up a plan for reunification with a concurrent adoption plan. After a contested permanency hearing held in 2022, about two years after that third removal, the court changed the reunification plan to adoption. The children, who had been in multiple and separate placements, were living together in a stable placement with mothers sister for about a year and a half by the time of the termination trial. She wishes to adopt them.
During the course of the proceedings, mother and the children participated in individual psychological evaluations and received various services, including mental health counseling. Though mother denied abusing the children, she admitted that they experienced trauma in her home and asserted that she “take[s] some responsibility” for that trauma. In her view, “at least 60” percent of the childrens mental health issues “come[ ] from their dad” and “30/40” percent come from her actions “dealing with their dad.”
Mother has been diagnosed with several mental health conditions, including bipolar II disorder, as stated above, and other personality disorder with paranoid, narcissistic, and borderline traits. Those conditions have impacted mothers capacity to control her behaviors and take accountability for how her conduct led to removal of the children. Although mother was prescribed medication for bipolar II disorder, she denies that she suffers from that disorder and stopped taking the prescribed medication. Mothers evaluators, psychologists Daniel Munoz and Claudia Lake, testified regarding the ways that mothers mental health conditions interfere with her ability to prioritize the needs of her children and expressed concern that, despite treatment, her conditions have not improved over time.
Moreover, evaluators, including Munoz, Lake, and two other psychologists who evaluated the children, as well as mothers sister, testified to the ongoing impacts of trauma on all three children. A needed counseling to process trauma connected to mothers assault. When he first moved into mothers sisters home, he was very destructive after visits with mother, would be up very late, was very emotional and crying, and would destroy things in his room. Y also experienced trauma from her experiences of neglect and exposure to domestic violence and struggled with poor boundaries, becoming overly familiar with strangers. N was struggling with language development and the impacts of physical abuse. Those evaluators agreed that all three children needed permanency.
The children express reluctance to visit mother. A demonstrates anxiety before visits and Y is very emotional and has a hard time falling asleep after visits. A has expressed that he wants to live with mothers sister and, when asked about mother, Y often changes the topic; she has indicated that she would like parents to stop hitting each other.
Mothers sister expressed a preference for adoption over a permanent guardianship because of difficulties in her relationship with mother, who she describes as “very hostile” and “constantly harassing.” Mother has frequently objected to activities that mothers sister has planned for the children, including trips to visit relatives in Ohio over spring break and Christmas break, both of which were approved by the juvenile court. Regarding the Christmas trip, mother informed DHS that she intended to “report the children as missing” and “have charges filed” if they were not back by a date that she specified, which was a day earlier than the court had approved. The history of conflicts led mothers sister to expect that there would be “[no] peace” with a guardianship, though she acknowledged that contact with mother could be possible post-adoption if the children wanted it and if mother could engage them in a healthy way.
On appeal, mother concedes that she is unfit but contends that termination is not in the childrens best interest, urging that a permanent guardianship would better provide for the childrens need for permanency. She maintains that she caused injury to A when she was under stress that would not be present if the children remained in a guardianship with her sister, notes that she engaged consistently and safely in visitation with the children, argues that concerns about her disrupting a guardianship are speculative despite her contentious relationship with her sister, and expresses concern that her sister might sever contact with the children post-adoption for reasons inconsistent with the childrens best interests.
After reviewing the record de novo, we are persuaded that DHS proved by clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the childrens best interest. The evidence establishes that mothers conduct toward A was abusive, and that A and Y continue to suffer trauma connected to mothers conduct and conditions and evince distress after visits. Further, the childrens attachment to mother appears to be insecure, and mothers history of conflicts with her sister over decisions related to the children, along with mothers lack of progress in addressing her mental health conditions, support valid concerns about her capacity to abide by boundaries set in her contact with the children. Circumstances where, as in this case, a parent is making excuses for the conduct that supports the finding of unfitness and demonstrates a poor capacity to cooperate with the terms of a permanent guardianship counsel against a finding that a permanent guardianship serves the best interest of children. We conclude that termination of mothers parental rights is in the childrens best interest on this record.
Affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1
. Father is not a party in this appeal. Prior to the termination trial, he relinquished his parental rights to all three children.
2
. Although mother denied abusing the children at trial, the juvenile court found credible the investigating officers testimony regarding mothers admissions to biting all three children. We defer to that credibility finding.
ORTEGA, P. J.