Department of Human Services v. A. D.
255 Or. App. 567
| Or. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- DHS took C into protective custody in Sept 2010 after two posterior rib fractures and lacking explanations from parents.
- The juvenile court exercised jurisdiction in Jan 2011 on non-accidental trauma and parents’ cognitive deficiencies affecting understanding of trauma.
- Psychological evaluations by Dr. Ewell diagnosed mother with adjustment disorder and cognitive deficits; father with cognitive limitations and PTSD partial remission; both may benefit from individualized instruction and coping supports.
- DHS provided extensive services including extended visits, in-home coaching, parenting classes, and mental health services to mother; fewer services were provided to address PTSD and couples counseling as Ewell recommended.
- At the March 2012 permanency hearing, the court found DHS’s efforts reasonable but concluded parents had not made sufficient progress to safely return C and changed the plan to adoption.
- Court noted cognitive limitations hinder parents’ protective capacity; despite pleasant visits, there was no evidence of progress likely to enable return in the foreseeable future.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did DHS make reasonable efforts to reunify? | Parents argue efforts were not reasonably related to jur basis and under-Ewell recommendations. | DHS contends it provided related services and followed reasonable approach. | Yes; court found DHS reasonable. |
| Did parents make sufficient progress to allow safe return? | Parents claim progress shown by safe visits and lack of incidents demonstrates return within reasonable time. | DHS alleges persistent cognitive barriers prevented safe return. | No; court found insufficient progress given cognitive limits. |
| Could further services make safe return possible within a reasonable time? | Parents contend additional services could enable return. | DHS did not need to prove that ongoing progress would occur with further services; nonetheless record shows unlikely. | Yes; court held further services would not reasonably enable return. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. T. R., 251 Or App 6 (Or. App. 2012) (provides standard for reviewing whether record supports reasonable efforts and progress)
- Dept. of Human Services v. N. M. S., 246 Or App 284 (Or. App. 2011) (jurisdictional bases and barriers identified by petition guide case plan)
- D. L. H., 251 Or App 787 (Or. App. 2012) (discussion of reasonable time for reunification and termination timing)
- K. D., 228 Or App 506 (Or. App. 2009) (identifies barrier-to-reunification framework in dependency cases)