430 P.3d 585
Or. Ct. App.2018Background
- C (born ~2010) was removed in 2014 after unsafe home conditions and parental substance use/exposure to criminal activity; juvenile court took jurisdiction.
- C lived with maternal grandmother (DG) for ~2 years; DHS reported the grandmother used inappropriate discipline and had a negative view of C.
- In Dec. 2016 C was placed in father’s care for a trial reunification; C improved behaviorally while with father, but father relapsed and was incarcerated in June 2017 with earliest release ~July 2022.
- After father’s incarceration C was placed with maternal cousin KG, with whom he bonded; DHS instructed KG to keep grandmother’s contact supervised because of safety concerns, but KG resisted some restrictions.
- DHS recommended changing the permanency plan from reunification to adoption (noting C’s long time in care and need for stability); father preferred guardianship with KG to preserve bonds.
- The juvenile court changed the plan to adoption, finding DHS made reasonable efforts, parents hadn’t made sufficient progress, C couldn’t be returned to parents, and there was no "compelling reason" under ORS 419B.498(2) to forgo filing to terminate parental rights. Father appealed only that last determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a "compelling reason" under ORS 419B.498(2) to avoid filing a petition to terminate parental rights (i.e., whether guardianship with KG or preserving bond with father is a better permanent plan than adoption) | Father: C’s strong bond with father and stability with relative (KG) constitute a compelling reason to forgo termination and pursue guardianship instead of adoption | DHS: Adoption is the most permanent, stable plan for C given parents’ lack of progress and father’s lengthy incarceration; DHS also expressed concerns KG did not comply with child-safety requirements and about grandmother’s risks | Court: Affirmed juvenile court — sufficient evidence supports the conclusion that no compelling reason existed to avoid a termination petition; proposed guardianship was not better suited to meet C’s health/safety needs given safety-plan noncompliance, grandmother’s prior conduct, parents’ status, and C’s extended time in care |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. N. P., 257 Or. App. 633 (appellate review of permanency judgments is limited to sufficiency of evidence)
- Dept. of Human Services v. C. M. E., 278 Or. App. 297 (court considered whether parent–child bond can be a compelling reason to forgo termination)
- Dept. of Human Services v. T. M. S., 273 Or. App. 286 (sufficient evidence can support finding that parent–child bond is not a compelling reason to avoid termination)
- Dept. of Human Services v. J. M. T. M., 290 Or. App. 635 (insufficient evidence where DHS presented no evidence about guardianship)
- Dept. of Human Services v. S. J. M., 283 Or. App. 367 (statutory framework requires meaningful inquiry into alternatives before approving adoption plan)
- Dept. of Human Services v. S. S., 283 Or. App. 136 (permanency determinations should be child-centered and based on current evaluation)
- State ex rel. DHS v. M. A., 227 Or. App. 172 (juvenile court must make statutorily required findings when changing permanency plan)
- State ex rel. SOSCF v. Stillman, 333 Or. 135 (incarceration alone does not automatically justify termination; attachment to incarcerated parent matters)