Department of Human Services v. J. R. L.
256 Or. App. 437
| Or. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- DHS removed A in 2010 due to risks, including father’s predatory sex offender status and homelessness; A was not in school during homelessness.
- March 2011 jurisdictional judgment made A a ward based on mother’s admissions: allowing father to live with A, need for education/counseling to protect A, lack of safe housing, and failure to meet A’s educational needs.
- The jurisdictional judgment attached a Services Requested form listing services for mother (psychological evaluation, counseling, housing, employment) to be completed.
- Mother engaged in FSAT, various counseling, and other services; she was diagnosed with major depressive disorder in mid-2011 and remained with depression/anxiety impacting daily functioning.
- By August 2012 DHS sought to change the plan to adoption with a permanency hearing; DHS did not seek to amend petitions to include mental-health as a basis; the court’s permanency decision largely rested on mother’s mental health progress.
- The court denied mother’s motion to dismiss wardship and changed the plan to adoption, basing some conclusions on mental health evidence extrinsic to the original jurisdictional bases; the opinion reverses and remands on these grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by denying motion to dismiss based on extrinsic mental-health grounds. | Mother argues mental health was not a jurisdictional basis and was not adequately noticed. | DHS contends mental health is connected to other jurisdictional facts and properly considered. | Reversed; judgment relied on extrinsic mental-health grounds; remanded for reconsideration without those extrinsic facts. |
| Whether the change of permanency plan to adoption was supported by proper notice and bases. | Mother contends plan change rested on un-noticed mental-health issues not in the jurisdictional judgment. | DHS argues mental health issues relate to housing/employment and were adequately connected to bases for jurisdiction. | Reversed; remanded for reconsideration using only permissible jurisdictional bases. |
Key Cases Cited
- G. E., 243 Or. App. 471 (2011) (adequate notice required; cannot rely on non-petition facts to continue wardship)
- N. M. S., 246 Or. App. 284 (2011) (limits on using case plans to cure notice deficiencies; if not implied by judgment, not proper notice)
- N. T., 247 Or. App. 706 (2012) (reversals where basis for adoption not within jurisdictional judgment or clearly implied)
- M. M. B., 253 Or. App. 431 (2012) (action agreement as attached to judgment may fix notice of progress measures)