Michels v. Hodges

The Supreme Court has repeatedly said the opposite of what the majority holds here, and I am unable to agree with the majority that we should decline to follow what that court has said. I would hold that the trial court did not err by concluding that the need for appellant Hodges’ consent to the adoption under ORS chapter 109 was obviated by the fact that his conduct came within ORS 419B.504 and ORS 419B.506, and I would affirm.1

*136At the expense of repeating some of what the majority has said, I will begin by discussing the relevant Supreme Court authority. The court has recognized that the…