Department of Human Services v. A. R. S.
256 Or. App. 653
| Or. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- This is a juvenile dependency case where mother and child appeal a permanency judgment denying motions to dismiss jurisdiction and continuing a return-to-parent plan; court found father had made sufficient progress but mother had not.
- The permanency plan contemplates return to father in Mexico, though the order does not explicitly place the child there.
- The district court relied on mother’s alleged personality disorder to deny reunification, a fact not pleaded or proved as a basis for jurisdiction.
- Jurisdiction over mother was based on six deficiencies: residential instability, substance abuse, leaving the child with the grandmother, failure to have staples removed from the child’s head, unsafe partners, and relinquishment of rights to other children.
- The record shows the child has lived with the foster mother since 2009, father lives in Mexico and has engaged with authorities there, and DHS proceeded under prior cases and guidance; appellate reversal is based on improper reliance on extrinsic facts not reflected in the jurisdictional judgment.
- Court reverses and remands for reconsideration without reliance on the unpleaded personality disorder, and declines de novo review while acknowledging historial basis for the evidence and prior decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by relying on an unpleaded personality disorder to sustain jurisdiction | Mother | DHS argued it did not rely on the disorder as a standalone basis | Reversed and remanded for reconsideration without reliance on the disorder |
| Whether denial of motions to dismiss was proper given the proper jurisdictional bases | Mother and child | Court properly evaluated progress against jurisdictional bases | Reversed and remanded for reconsideration based on correct scope of jurisdictional bases |
| Whether de novo review was warranted | Appellants | Not an exceptional case; not warranted | De novo review denied; court reviews legal conclusions only |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. A. R. S., 249 Or App 603 (2012) (reversed where court treated independent parenting ability as basis for progress)
- Dept. of Human Services v. N. M. S., 246 Or App 284 (2011) (remand when relying on extrinsic facts not in judgment)
- Dept. of Human Services v. G. E., 243 Or App 471 (2011) (notice requirement; same standard for continued wardship)
- Dept. of Human Services v. N. T., 247 Or App 706 (2012) (jurisdictional framework for DHS efforts and parent progress)
- Dept. of Human Services v. J. R. L., 256 Or App 437 (2013) (reversed for reliance on mental health extrinsic facts; remand without extrinsic facts)