This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

Submitted June 23, affirmed July 20, petition for review denied November 23, 2022 (370 Or 471)

In the Matter of E. M. M. C., a Child.

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. C. S. C., Appellant.

Clackamas County Circuit Court 20JU04782; A177434 Todd L. Van Rysselberghe, Judge.

Christa Obold Eshleman and Youth, Rights & Justice filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Shannon T. Reel, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before James, Presiding Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge, and Joyce, Judge.

JOYCE, J.

Affirmed.

40 Dept. of Human Services v. C. S. C.

JOYCE, J.

Father appeals from a judgment terminating his parental rights to his son, E. The juvenile court concluded that father was “unfit by reason of conduct or condition seri- ously detrimental to the child or ward and integration of the child or ward into the home of the parent * * * is improbable within a reasonable time due to conduct or conditions not likely to change.” ORS 419B.504. The court also ruled that father had “[p]revious involuntary terminations of the par- ent’s rights to another child * * * [and] the conditions giving rise to the previous action have not been ameliorated.” ORS 419B.502(6). Finally, the court concluded that termination of father’s rights was in E’s best interests. ORS 419B.500(1).

Having reviewed the record de novo, we affirm the trial court’s decision terminating father’s parental rights on both statutory bases and concluding that termination was in E’s best interests.

Affirmed.