Department of Human Services v. T. R.
251 Or. App. 6
| Or. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Child born Feb 2010; injuries led to protective custody by DHS in June 2010.
- 27 fractures and numerous bruises found; injuries deemed nonaccidental trauma alleged to be caused in the parents’ custody.
- Parents, who are hearing impaired, deny intentional harm; provide various explanations.
- Child remained in DHS custody since June 2010; jurisdiction stipulated Sept 2010.
- DHS offered services (alcohol/drug, parenting, counseling, supervised visits) and parents participated; medical evidence linked injuries to abuse.
- Juvenile court changed permanency plan from reunification to adoption under ORS 419B.476; health and safety of the child paramount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS made reasonable efforts to reunify the family | Parents argue DHS failed to offer abuse-focused services without parent admission. | DHS contends services were reasonable given lack of explanation for injuries. | Reasonable efforts supported; lack of specific causes limited targeted services. |
| Whether the parents made sufficient progress toward reunification | Parents claim full participation and progress reduce risk. | Court relied on parents’ denial of knowledge about injuries; progress insufficient to ensure safety. | Not sufficient; unresolved causes hindered assessment of future risk. |
| Whether conditioning reunification on an explanation of injuries violatess Fifth Amendment | Mother argues compelled self-incrimination; admission not required for services. | Record shows inquiry into causes is necessary for meaningful services;no preservation error. | Fifth Amendment issue not preserved; or not constitutional flaw in context; not fatal to judgment. |
| Whether the court properly addressed ORS 419B.476(5) deadlines for TPR petition | Failure to set explicit deadlines for TPR is reversible error. | Failure not fatal; judgment set date for a preliminary TPR hearing; not defective on face. | Not fatal; error harmless; not reversible per se. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shugars v. Dept. of Human Services, 208 Or App 694 (2006) (standard for sufficient progress; not model parenting but safety risk remains)
- State ex rel DHS v. M. A., 227 Or App 172 (2009) (failure to include ORS 419B.476 findings can be reversible error)
- Dept. of Human Services v. K. L. R., 235 Or App 1 (2010) (admission of abuse may violate Fifth Amendment; therapy may proceed without self-incrimination risk)
- State ex rel DHS v. S. L., 211 Or App 362 (2007) (explanation of plan changes under ORS 419B.476(2) requirements)
- State ex rel Dept. of Human Services v. S.A., 250 Or App 720 (2012) (relevance of permanency determinations in guardianship continuations)
- Dept. of Human Services v. N. T., 247 Or App 706 (2012) (review of reasonable efforts based on jurisdictional facts)
- State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. J. F. B., 230 Or App 106 (2009) (preservation and scope of error in dependency determinations)