Department of Human Services v. W. H. F., 254 Or. App. 298

S is an Indian child within the King Island Native Community; ICWA applies.
Father had a sexual relationship with mother when she was 14; father later incarcerated for related offenses.
S has been in DHS foster care since 2007; a permanency plan of adoption has been in place since 2008.
Current foster placement is with a family willing to adopt; the potential adoptive father is an Indian tribal member.
On remand from a prior reversal, the juvenile court again continued adoption and filed a termination petition; father appeals.
Issues include whether active efforts are required at the permanency stage when the plan is adoption, and notice and timeliness concerns.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether active efforts are required under ICWA during the permanency hearing when the plan is adoption	Father contends ICWA requires active efforts for every permanency step.	State argues active efforts apply only when the plan is reunification.	Active efforts not required under ICWA for permanency adoption.
Whether ICWA notice was required for the move to the current adoptive placement	Father asserts lack of notice violated ICWA/BIA guidelines.	Record shows father received notice; issue not preserved or merits no violation.	Notice issue rejected; record shows notice was provided.
Whether the permanency order's 7-day delay beyond 20 days requires reversal	Delay in entering order violated ORS 419B.476(5) and warrants reversal.	Delay was harmless; no preserved prejudice to father.	Delay was harmless; no reversal required.
Whether the court abused its discretion by not granting a continuance for additional testimony	Testimony from sister could affect placement preference.	Court properly weighed offer of proof; admission would not change outcome.	No abuse of discretion; decision affirmed.
Whether the case is moot due to a later termination judgment	Termination judgment could render this appeal moot if reversed.	Appeal not moot because notice of appeal from termination exists and reversal could affect it.	Case not moot; potential impact on termination judgment preserved.

Dept. of Human Services v. E. L., 237 Or App 206 (2010) (timing of permanency order; harmless error when prejudice absent)
Dept. of Human Services v. T. C. A., 251 Or App 407 (2012) (ORS 419B.476(2)(a) applies only when plan is reunification)
State ex rel SOSCF v. Lucas, 177 Or App 318 (2001) (BIA guidelines not binding; notice not mandatory in all contexts)