Department of Human Services v. C. L.
254 Or. App. 203
| Or. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Juvenile dependency case where mother appeals a permanency hearing decision changing B’s plan from APPLA to adoption and denying reunification; court found reunification not possible in a reasonable time and ordered filing a termination petition with 90-day preliminary hearing.
- DHS had been involved since 2004 after A and S reported abuse by Lister; B is the only child in the current proceeding.
- Permanency history: initial plan was reunification, later changed to APPLA in 2010; in 2011 the court changed it to adoption and set termination petition timing.
- Mother allegedly abused A and B; evidence of abuse was presented at the June 2011 hearing for the first time, though not part of the original jurisdictional bases.
- Judicial standards: when APPLA is the plan, court assesses DHS’s reasonable efforts to place the ward in a timely manner; when plan is not reunification, “sufficient progress” is not the standard, but child-centered considerations under ORS 419B.498(2) apply.
- Lister is not a party on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred in denying reunification when APPLA was the current plan | Mother argues for reunification based on amelioration of bases for jurisdiction | DHS contends plan is APPLA, so focus is on timely placement under 419B.476(2)(b) | No error; court properly rejected reunification as inconsistent with APPLA and DHS’s reasonable efforts under 419B.476(2)(b) |
| Whether extrajurisdictional evidence of past abuse could be considered to assess reasonable time for return | Mother asserts such evidence is outside jurisdictional bases and cannot be considered | State argues extrinsic evidence is permissible when permanency plan is not reunification, with safeguards | Not error; evidence properly considered to assess whether child could be returned within a reasonable time under 419B.498(2)(b)(A) with safeguards |
| Whether mother’s amelioration of the bases for jurisdiction supports return within a reasonable time | Record shows progress that should permit return | Progress is not evaluated against past abuse extrinsic to plan; focus is on reasonable placement under APPLA | Affirmed; court’s determination that return within reasonable time was not supported by the record and that adoption was appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. N. M. S., 246 Or App 284, 266 P3d 107 (2011) (reliance on extrinsic facts in reunification context affects rights when petition targets reunification)
- Dept. of Human Services v. N. T., 247 Or App 706, 271 P3d 143 (2012) (extrinsic facts in reunification context improper when plan is reunification)
- Dept. of Human Services v. G. E., 243 Or App 471, 260 P3d 516 (2011) (court may not continue jurisdiction based on unalleged facts affecting substantial rights)
- State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. K. D., 228 Or App 506, 209 P3d 810 (2009) (interpretation of ORS 419B.476(2)(a) limits to bases for jurisdiction when evaluating parental progress and DHS efforts)
- Dept. of Human Services v. T. C. A., 251 Or App 407, 283 P3d 956 (2012) (reunification context; parental progress assessed with notice of required actions)