As a matter of state statutory law and federal due process, parents have the right to meaningfully participate in defending against petitions by the state child welfare agency to terminate their parental rights, in this case, the Oregon Department of Human Services (the department) filed a petition alleging that I Jada Marcum was unfit, and that termination of parental rights (TPR) was in my daughter's best interest.

My TPR trial was conducted on video, over the Oregon courts WebEx platform, during a time Washington county had restrictions on in-person contact due to the covid-19 pandemic, while D.O.C was willing to transport me I still did not have an option to go in person for trial even on such a serious matter. When Jada Marcum appealed from the TPR judgement, my appellate counsel discovered that there were several instances in the transcript where the WebEx system, witness's connections, and video potentially interfered with the courts ability to fully ascertain the entirety of the evidence presented. I Jada Marcum filed a motion to set aside the TPR judgment under ORS 419B.923, citing those technical lapses as evidence that I Jada Marcum was denied my statutory and due process rights to a fundamentally fair hearing. The court denied my motion, both as untimely and on the merits.

1. Did the court abuse its discretion in ruling that I Jada Marcum's motion was untimely filed?

2. Did the court err as a matter of law in ruling that I Jada Marcum failed to state a claim under ORS 419B.923?

3. Did the court err as a matter of law in ruling that the lapses in the record caused by technical difficulties had no effect on I Jada Marcum's rights or the outcome of the proceeding?

4. Did the court err in not transporting me for in person trial?

parental-rights-termination