290 P.3d 900
Or. Ct. App.2012Background
- Mother appeals a juvenile court judgment making her two-year-old son a ward of the court and committing him to DHS custody for risk of harm from neglect, mental instability, domestic violence, and poor DHS service outcomes.
- Dispositional order allegedly failed to include a brief description of DHS’s reasonable preventive and reunification efforts as required by ORS 419B.340(2).
- The juvenile court had found the department’s efforts reasonable and that mother had not benefited from in-home safety and reunification services.
- Mother argued the error was unpreserved or plain error; she sought plain error review or preservation relief.
- We held that preservation was required for the ORS 419B.340(2) findings and declined plain error review.
- The court affirmed the judgment and noted the jurisdictional bases about residential and lifestyle factors were moot after amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the dispositional order must include ORS 419B.340(2) findings | Mother argues the order lacked required brief description of reasonable efforts. | DHS agrees the findings were missing but contends the issue was not preserved. | Yes; findings must appear in the dispositional order. |
| Whether the error was preserved for appeal | Mother claims no preservation was required under M. A. and related lines of case law. | DHS maintains preservation was required to challenge the omission on appeal. | Preservation was required. |
| Whether the error should be reviewed as plain error | Mother seeks plain error review due to omission. | DHS argues plain error review is not warranted given potential for correction and lack of demonstrated harm. | No plain error review; discretion declined. |
| Whether the omission caused harm beyond de minimis level | Error could have affected the outcome or remedies. | Harm is de minimis given record findings that DHS efforts were reasonable and mother failed to benefit. | Harm insignificant; no reversal for harm. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. D., 238 Or App 134 (2010) (dispositional findings must be in the judgment; recitations at hearing insufficient)
- State ex rel DHS v. M. A., 227 Or App 172 (2009) (lack of objection not fatal where statutes limit discovery of order defects; plain error review limited)
- Dept. of Human Services v. W. F., 240 Or App 443 (2011) (reversing and remanding for failure to comply with statutory requirement)