Department of Human Services v. D. W. C.
258 Or. App. 163
| Or. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- This is a juvenile dependency case in which the court changed A’s permanency plan from reunification to guardianship.
- DHS sought to modify the plan based on concerns that father had limited contact and failed to establish a relationship with A.
- The court declined de novo review and reviewed the record in the light most favorable to the trial court’s decision.
- A was seven years old at the permanency hearing and had significant behavioral and developmental needs requiring stable placement.
- Father lived in Oklahoma, had minimal visitation, and did not participate in scheduled evaluations or reliably contact A.
- DHS presented evidence that father’s contact and understanding of A’s needs were insufficient to support reunification and that A would benefit from a guardianship arrangement to ensure safety and stability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS proved father made insufficient progress to reunify. | Father contends progress toward reunification was adequate. | DHS argues father’s limited contact and lack of understanding show insufficient progress. | Yes; record supports insufficient progress for reunification. |
| Whether the jurisdictional basis persisted to bar return to father. | Father maintains the original bases no longer endanger A. | DHS argues the basis of limited contact persisted. | Yes; the persistence of limited contact supported the change in plan. |
| Whether J. N. requires proof of ongoing severe harm to justify guardianship. | Father cites J. N. to require proving future harm. | DHS argues J. N. is distinguishable and not controlling here. | Distinguishable; record supports the court’s ruling even without J. N. rationale. |
| Whether father was entitled to a presumption that his care was in A’s best interests under ORS 419B.090(4). | Father relies on statutory presumption and Troxel protections. | Court rejected presumption given dependency and lack of fit. | No; presumption not controlling where dependency and safety concerns persist. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. N. P., 257 Or App 633 (Or. App. 2013) (review standard; sufficiency of progress to reunify)
- C. L., 254 Or App 203 (Or. App. 2012) (sufficiency of progress measured against jurisdictional bases)
- N. S., 246 Or App 341 (Or. App. 2011) (mere participation in services insufficient for progress)
- Shugars, 208 Or App 694 (Or. App. 2006) (child health and safety paramount; permanency plan change requires progress)
- J. N., 253 Or App 494 (Or. App. 2012) (reversal when record does not support severe harm finding)
- S. L., 211 Or App 362 (Or. App. 2007) (reasonableness of reunification efforts; progress required)
- S. M., 256 Or App 15 (Or. App. 2013) (preservation of parental rights vs. best interests; Troxel framework)