Department of Human Services v. G. E.
243 Or. App. 471
| Or. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Child N. was removed in Nov 2007; petition alleged endangerment due to unsafe living conditions with maternal grandmother, firearm threat, substandard housing, substance abuse, no legal father.
- Mother completed parenting, drug, and alcohol treatment after Safe Haven placement in 2008; N. returned briefly then removed again in Nov 2008 amid concerns of parental overwhelm and possible adoption.
- N. remained in foster care with adoptive-placing family; mother pursued varying levels of services and expressed interest in reunification or adoption; mother became pregnant with L. in 2009.
- Permanency plan changed to adoption in June 2009; a 2010 permanency judgment again stated adoption, later reversed for missing ORS 419B.476(5)(d) findings.
- In Feb 2010, this court reversed and remanded for failure to include required disposition findings; mother moved to dismiss wardship after a 2010 combined hearing, which denied dismissal and continued adoption as plan.
- Court found extrinsic facts (safety concerns beyond the original petition) supported adoption; remanded to clarify or amend the jurisdictional judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the wardship could be continued based on ameliorated facts | Mother argues jurisdictional facts ceased to exist and reliance on extrinsic facts was improper | DHS contends continued wardship based on evolving safety concerns is permissible | Remanded to clarify the original jurisdictional judgment; extrinsic facts require amendment or amendment of judgment |
| Whether the court erred in considering extrinsic facts to change permanency | Mother contends extrinsic facts changed the case without proper amendment | DHS argues flexibility in facts is allowed if notice and standards are met | Remanded for potential amendment of petition/judgment to address extrinsic facts |
| Whether the state made reasonable efforts to reunify | Mother argues lack of progress and insufficient services | State contends extraordinary efforts were made | Court did not reach merits on remand; note addresses but rejects in final decision on revocation; reversed on other grounds |
| Whether the December 2007 jurisdictional petition properly framed notice of issues | Ameliorated facts should negate jurisdiction | Facts must remain within petition's scope or be properly amended | Remanded to determine if petition/judgment should be amended to reflect current facts |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Juv. Dept. v. Gates, 96 Or.App. 365 (1989) (limits on jurisdiction when facts shift; need amendment when rights affected)
- State v. A.L.M., 232 Or.App. 13 (2009) (cannot continue wardship where jurisdictional facts cease to exist)
- Dept. of Human Services v. C.Z., 236 Or.App. 436 (2010) (standard for review of factual determinations in dependency cases)
- State v. S.T.S., 236 Or.App. 646 (2010) (review standard for findings supported by evidence; historical facts bind unless rebutted)
- Dept. of Human Services v. G.E., 233 Or.App. 618 (2010) (remand for missing ORS 419B.476(5)(d) determination after adoption decision)