Department of Human Services v. N. T.
247 Or. App. 706
| Or. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- DHS petitioned for dependency on Mu (2005) and Me (2008) after a March 13, 2010 incident involving mother and father; Mu disclosed sexual abuse by father to therapists and a physician noted sexualized behavior.
- Jurisdictional judgments entered June 10, 2010 based on mother's admission of drug use/mental health needs and father's substance use, lifestyle instability, and threats of harm, with required evaluations and treatments.
- Mu began in care with maternal relatives; later placed with maternal grandfather and wife; DHS learned of Mu’s sexual abuse disclosures before the permanency hearing.
- At the April 21, 2011 permanency hearing, DHS sought to change plans to adoption; parents challenged use of Mu’s sexual abuse disclosures as not pled or adjudicated in the jurisdictional basis.
- The juvenile court found DHS had made reasonable efforts but parents had not made sufficient progress; it changed plans to adoption for both Mu and Me and ordered TPR petitions within 60 days.
- On appeal, parents argued the court relied on extrinsic sexual-abuse facts not in the jurisdictional judgment; court reversed and remanded for this error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court relied on extrinsic sexual-abuse facts | N.T. and M.T. argue reliance on Mu’s sexual abuse disclosures violated G.E. and N.M.S. | DHS contends the court relied on legitimate progress and barriers, not extrinsic facts. | Reversed and remanded for improper reliance on extrinsic facts. |
| Whether DHS's efforts and parents' progress can be reviewed independently of extrinsic facts | DHS contends progress shown by addressing substance and mental health issues supports change in plan. | Parents contend the extrinsic sexual-abuse facts taint the entire analysis and deprive them of proper notice and services. | Remand to evaluate under correct jurisdictional scope. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. G.E., 243 Or.App. 471 (2011) (cannot rely on facts outside jurisdictional basis when it affects substantial parental rights)
- Dept. of Human Services v. N.M.S., 246 Or.App. 284 (2011) (applies G.E. reasoning to permanency judgments and extrinsic facts)
- State ex rel. Juv. Dept. v. C.D.J., 229 Or.App. 160 (2009) (framework: reasonable efforts and parent progress measured against jurisdictional grounds)
- State v. S.T.S., 236 Or.App. 646 (2010) (standard for reviewing findings of historical fact; de novo review not appropriate)