Dep't of Human Servs. v. S.J.M. (In re L.B.M.)
364 Or. 37
| Or. | 2018Background
- Two consolidated juvenile dependency cases involving half-siblings L and A placed in relative foster care with their maternal aunt; DHS sought to change permanency plans from reunification to adoption after ~15 and ~12 months in care.
- Juvenile court found DHS had made reasonable reunification efforts, parents had not made sufficient progress, and further efforts would not permit safe return within a reasonable time; court changed plans to adoption and found no "compelling reason" under ORS 419B.498(2)(b) to defer filing termination petitions.
- The Court of Appeals reversed in two opinions (S.J.M. I and S.J.M. II), concluding (1) a determination under ORS 419B.498(2) was required before changing the plan to adoption (not reviewed here), and (2) DHS had failed to prove that no "compelling reason" existed, so the change to adoption was improper.
- The legal dispute on review concerned which party bears the burden to prove or disprove the existence of a "compelling reason" under ORS 419B.498(2)(b) that would excuse DHS from filing termination petitions after the 15-of-22-months benchmark.
- The Oregon Supreme Court held the party asserting the exception (here, the parents opposing termination) bears the burden to prove a "compelling reason"; the juvenile court’s factual findings supporting no compelling reason were supported by the record, so the Court of Appeals’ reversals were erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who bears burden to prove existence/nonexistence of a "compelling reason" under ORS 419B.498(2)(b) at a permanency hearing? | (Parents) Court should interpret statutes to avoid presuming adoption; DHS must show no compelling reason exists. | (DHS) Party seeking to invoke the exception (those opposing termination) bears burden to prove a compelling reason; DHS need not disprove every conceivable reason. | Held: Burden is on the party asserting the exception (parents) to prove a compelling reason; DHS was not required to prove absence of such a reason. |
| Whether the juvenile court's findings (that no "compelling reason" existed and adoption was appropriate) were supported by the record | (Parents) Record lacked evidence connecting permanency needs and timelines to justify termination; parents' progress in services could be compelling reason. | (DHS) Juvenile court made credibility and factual findings showing dishonesty, failure to protect, emotional instability, and inability to implement skills — supporting no compelling reason. | Held: Juvenile court’s findings are supported by the evidence (credibility determinations, testimony, case plans); appellate reversal was error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. S.J.M., 283 Or. App. 367 (Or. Ct. App.) (Court of Appeals decision addressing A; held insufficient record and reversed juvenile court)
- Dept. of Human Services v. S.J.M., 283 Or. App. 592 (Or. Ct. App.) (Court of Appeals decision addressing L; similar reasoning and reversal)
- Dept. of Human Services v. D. L. H., 251 Or. App. 787 (Or. Ct. App.) (prior Court of Appeals decision discussing permanency-plan change and court discretion)
- Dept. of Human Services v. S.J.M., 364 Or. 37 (Or. 2018) (Oregon Supreme Court opinion holding burden to prove a "compelling reason" rests with party asserting the exception and affirming juvenile court judgments)