128 June 5, 2024 No. 388 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of A. S. M. H., a Child.

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. N. M. H., Appellant.

Jackson County Circuit Court 23JU00159; A182785 David G. Hoppe, Judge.

Submitted April 3, 2024.

George W. Kelly filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Kyleigh Gray, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

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

PER CURIAM Affirmed.

Nonprecedential Memo Op: 333 Or App 128 (2024) 129 PER CURIAM Mother appeals a judgment terminating her paren- tal rights to her child, A. On appeal, mother assigns error to the juvenile court’s determination that terminating moth- er’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests. We review de novo, ORS 419A.200(6), and affirm.

A parent’s rights can be terminated only if the court finds that termination is in the child’s best interests. ORS 419B.500(1) (“The parental rights of the parents of a ward may be terminated * * * only upon a petition filed * * * for the purpose of freeing the ward for adoption if the court finds it is in the best interests of the ward[.]”). We do not presume that adoption is the best outcome for every child who lacks fit parents; rather, the court must consider the needs and cir- cumstances of the child. Dept. of Human Services v. T. M. D., 365 Or 143, 161-63, 166, 442 P3d 1100 (2019). Termination is appropriate only if the court determines that “the benefits to the child of ending the child’s legal relationship with a par- ent outweigh the risk of harm posed to the child by severing that legal relationship.” Dept. of Human Services v. L. M. B., 321 Or App 50, 53, 515 P3d 927 (2022).

Mother argues that termination is not in A’s best interests because A is bonded to her and adoption is not nec- essary to achieve permanency. Having reviewed the record, we agree with the juvenile court that termination of mother’s parental rights is in A’s best interests. We are particularly persuaded by the evidence that A and mother have a limited bond and A has a strong need for permanency. Additionally, given the difficult relationship that mother has with the resource parents, a permanent guardianship is not in A’s best interests. See Dept. of Human Services v. J. S. E. S., 315 Or App 242, 245, 501 P3d 556 (2021), rev den, 369 Or 209 (2022) (considering that “a permanent guardianship would be difficult to maintain in [the child’s] proposed adop- tive placement with her current foster parents, given that mother is not on good terms with them and they have valid concerns that she will not respect their boundaries”).

Affirmed.