435 P.3d 819
Or. Ct. App.2019Background
- K, born 2015, was placed under juvenile-court jurisdiction in March 2017 based on parents' admissions; relevant to this appeal are two jurisdictional findings as to father: (1) "significant medical issues" interfering with parenting; and (2) lack of sufficient and stable housing for the child (added March 2018).
- At an April 24, 2018 permanency hearing DHS caseworker Stan testified DHS considered the original medical concern largely resolved after father produced a doctor’s letter stating his diagnoses were diabetes, hypertension, and chronic back pain.
- Stan also testified father had made statements (including Facebook posts) claiming he needed a double hip replacement and had renal cancer; DHS did not treat those statements as a barrier to reunification but said accurate medical information was important.
- Stan identified housing as the primary barrier to reunification but agreed father had taken steps (housing list application, Oxford House interview) and was pursuing housing while awaiting SSDI determinations.
- DHS requested and the juvenile court ordered a psychological evaluation of father; father objected that such an evaluation bore no rational relationship to the jurisdictional bases.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the ordered psychological evaluation was not rationally related to either jurisdictional basis and therefore was unauthorized under ORS 419B.337(2) as interpreted by prior Oregon appellate precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ordering a psychological evaluation bears a "rational relationship" to the original jurisdictional finding that father had "significant medical issues" interfering with parenting | Psychological eval is unrelated because the medical finding concerned physical health; doctor’s letter resolved the concern | A psychological evaluation could reveal mental-health aspects relevant to "medical issues" or the father’s misrepresentations | Reversed — no rational relationship: the record showed the medical issue was physical and resolved by a doctor’s letter; misrepresentations about health did not link to the jurisdictional basis or to services needed to address it |
| Whether ordering a psychological evaluation bears a "rational relationship" to the jurisdictional finding that father lacks sufficient and stable housing | Not related: father was actively pursuing housing and there was no evidence mental health was contributing to the housing problem | DHS: a psychological evaluation "might be helpful" to identify an "unidentified barrier" impeding father from engaging fully in housing pursuit | Reversed — no rational relationship: DHS offered only speculative testimony; no evidence suggested mental health caused the housing deficiency and father was already engaged in housing steps |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. A. F., 295 Or. App. 69 (affirming low threshold for rational relationship but requiring some evidentiary link)
- State ex rel. Juv. Dept. v. G. L., 220 Or. App. 216 (juvenile court may order evaluation if it rationally relates to jurisdictional findings)
- Dept. of Human Services v. B. W., 249 Or. App. 123 (discussing the minimal threshold of justification for psychological evaluations)
- State v. R. H., 237 Or. App. 245 (application of rational-relationship standard to parental evaluations)
- Dept. of Human Services v. L. G., 250 Or. App. 290 (reversing order for random drug testing where no rational relationship existed)
- Dept. of Human Services v. D. D., 238 Or. App. 134 (discussing scope of admissions construed for jurisdictional review)