In re Mendez

986 P.2d 670 (1999)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re Mendez

Oregon Court of Appeals
986 P.2d 670 (1999)

Facts

Oregon’s State Office of Services for Children and Families (the state) filed a termination-of-parental-rights petition, alleging Mother and Father (defendants) were not feeding their infant daughters, triplets, sufficiently. At nine months old, the triplets were underweight, considering what was anticipated based on their history, and their growth had declined. The triplets’ growth declined even further by the time the triplets were 12 months old. The triplets’ growth decline was measured against a standardized growth-curve chart, according to which the triplets were beneath all measures at birth. The issue that most concerned the triplets’ physician was a decline in the growth rate of each baby’s head circumference, which only occurred from severe nutritional deficiency. The triplets’ physician diagnosed the babies with nonorganic failure to thrive due to inadequate nutrition. This diagnosis was supported by the fact that the triplets absorbed nutrition and gained weight when they were in a setting in which they received proper nutrition. The triplets’ physician notified the state, which provided intensive services, including in-home guidance on feeding methods and nutrition, for over a year. However, the triplets only thrived sporadically, even with the support provided to Mother and Father. There was a termination hearing, at which experts testified that the triplets’ failure to grow and the reduced growth rate related to head circumference made permanent developmental delay a possibility. The triplets were naturally small in stature like their parents, but even accounting for this fact, a specialist confirmed the nonorganic-failure-to-thrive diagnosis. Although the babies were often sick, none of the experts cited this as a cause for their diagnoses. Mother and Father had trouble giving the triplets sufficient nutrition. Additionally, Mother and Father did not follow the guidance provided regarding nutrition, feeding, or feeding schedules. Testimony also revealed that Mother and Father had mental-health diagnoses that would cause Mother difficulty in using the guidance provided and would make Father resistant to help. A trial court dismissed the termination petition, determining that the state had not established a prima facie case for termination of parental rights.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Wollheim, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 821,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 821,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 821,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 989 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership