Department of Human Services v. G. N.
263 Or. App. 287
| Or. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Child (I), taken into state custody after father’s history of alcohol-related domestic violence and assault convictions; father suspended from and later reentered domestic violence treatment.
- Family engaged in individual and some family therapy; court ordered intensive family counseling in Sept. 2012 but joint family sessions with child began only in April 2013 and were discontinued after one problematic session.
- Father diagnosed with ADHD, briefly medicated but discontinued due to cost; DHS later assisted with medication funding.
- Child diagnosed with PTSD, reported that visits with father felt intimidating and that she did not want to return home; CASA and therapists expressed safety and trust concerns.
- Child had been a ward for 26 months at the permanency hearing; DHS recommended changing the permanency plan from reunification to APPLA (long-term foster care) and not filing for termination of parental rights, citing compelling reasons.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS made reasonable efforts to achieve reunification | DHS delayed/failed to fund ADHD meds, delayed/terminated family therapy prematurely, and limited visits to one hour/wk — all undermining reunification efforts | DHS provided individual and family services, reasonably adapted visitation and therapy based on child safety and therapeutic judgments, and assisted with medication when informed | Court held the record supports that DHS made reasonable efforts |
| Whether father made sufficient progress to permit return home | Father claimed he had ameliorated the original safety threats and further family therapy/visits could resolve child’s fears; disputed reliance on “internalization” testimony | State pointed to ongoing abusive, intimidating conduct during visits, lack of empathy, and therapists’ opinions that father reverts to a victim stance — supporting continued risk | Court held father had not made sufficient progress to allow safe return |
| Whether changing permanency plan to APPLA was permissible | Father argued the court erred in changing plan (including alleged reliance on improper evidence) | State argued APPLA appropriate given child’s safety, attachments, foster placement stability, and prospect that father might improve later — plus statutory requirements satisfied | Court affirmed change to APPLA, finding statutory criteria met |
| Whether DHS erred by not filing termination petition despite >15 months in care | Father implied DHS should pursue termination given duration of wardship | DHS documented compelling reasons (child’s age, sibling attachments, potential for future reunification) for not filing termination and instead seeking APPLA | Court accepted DHS’s documented compelling reasons and declined to require termination filing |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. N. P., 257 Or App 633 (legal-sufficiency review standard for juvenile dispositions)
- Dept. of Human Services v. A. D., 255 Or App 567 (requirements for changing permanency plan from reunification)
- Dept. of Human Services v. J. M., 260 Or App 261 (parent’s internal beliefs vs. likely future conduct in sufficiency analysis)
- Dept. of Human Services v. N. S., 246 Or App 341 (evidence of harmful ongoing behavior can show insufficient progress despite service completion)
- State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Williams, 204 Or App 496 (reasonable-efforts inquiry depends on case-specific circumstances)
- Dept. of Human Services v. J. R. L., 256 Or App 437 (presumption about unstated factual findings consistent with court’s ultimate conclusion)