429 P.3d 420
Or. Ct. App.2018Background
- Three children (ages 9, 7, 5) were removed after DHS filed dependency petitions in July 2016; an allegation of sexual abuse by mother's partner arose in September 2016.
- The parties reached an admission by mother at a contested hearing in November 2016, but the juvenile court did not enter jurisdictional or dispositional judgments until April 24, 2017 — about nine months after filing.
- Mother declined to engage in DHS-offered services during the prejurisdiction period because she disputed the need and waited for the court to order services; DHS provided an action agreement on May 2, 2017.
- After the April 2017 dispositional order (which required a psychological evaluation and recommended DBT), mother began services: psychological testing in June, feedback in July, and DBT group sessions beginning August 28, 2017.
- Permanency hearings occurred in September 2017 (about five months post-disposition); DHS moved to change the plan from reunification to adoption, citing children’s high needs and that mother’s DBT had only started about one month before the hearings.
- The juvenile court considered DHS’s entire timeline (including the nine-month prejurisdiction period) and concluded DHS made reasonable efforts to return the children; the appellate court reversed, finding error in that analysis and in the sufficiency of post-judgment efforts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court could consider DHS's prejurisdiction efforts when determining if DHS made "reasonable efforts" under ORS 419B.476(2)(a) | Prejurisdiction efforts should not be weighed because mother was not required to engage in services until jurisdiction/disposition were entered and the court could not assess reasonableness before adjudication | Reasonableness is judged over the life of the case; pre-removal and prejurisdiction efforts are relevant and DHS had duties from the start | Court held that, given the unusual nine-month delay and mother’s contested disposition, the prejurisdiction period could not be used to assess DHS's reasonableness for ORS 419B.476(2)(a) in this case |
| Whether DHS made reasonable efforts after jurisdiction/disposition (April–Sept 2017) to make it possible for the children to safely return | Mother argued the post-judgment period was too short (about five months), and DBT with a certified provider had only been underway ~1 month — insufficient to assess parental progress | DHS argued mother engaged in services after disposition and was making progress; DBT initiation and other services showed reasonable efforts | Court held post-judgment efforts were insufficient: one month of certified DBT and five months overall did not provide a sufficient period to assess whether mother could become minimally adequate; reversing the permanency change |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. A. D., 255 Or. App. 567 (addresses standard of review on reasonable-efforts determination)
- Dept. of Human Services v. S. M. H., 283 Or. App. 295 (reasonable-efforts measured over case life; need sufficient pre-hearing period to assess progress)
- Dept. of Human Services v. T. R., 251 Or. App. 6 (reasonableness depends on particular circumstances)
- Dept. of Human Services v. N. T., 247 Or. App. 706 (evaluate DHS efforts and parent progress by reference to adjudicated bases for jurisdiction)
- Dept. of Human Services v. S. S., 278 Or. App. 725 (court must evaluate DHS efforts in light of adjudicated bases)
- Dept. of Human Services v. S. W., 267 Or. App. 277 (reasonable-efforts analysis may consider pre- and post-removal efforts)
- State ex rel. Dept. of Human Services v. E. K., 230 Or. App. 63 (considers DHS efforts before and after removal in reasonable-efforts review)
- State ex rel. SOSCF v. Frazier, 152 Or. App. 568 (same in parental-rights termination context)