Department of Human Services v. R. B.
263 Or. App. 735
| Or. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Two daughters (A, age 8; C, age 3) were taken into DHS custody in 2011; juvenile court assumed jurisdiction on admitted allegations that mother is impulsive/unable to control behavior and lacks parenting knowledge/skills/motivation.
- Initial permanency plan was reunification; children returned for a trial home visit in Aug 2012 but were removed again after safety concerns (domestic partner hit A, mother discontinued counseling, housing instability).
- Mother completed various services (parenting, anger management, counseling) and improved in visits, but evaluations (Dr. Sweet) diagnosed recurrent major depression and a personality disorder; Sweet opined mother remained at an early stage of treatment and likely needed ~1 year more to parent safely, while A has high needs requiring stable structure.
- In July 2013 DHS filed a second dependency petition adding an allegation that mother’s mental illness interferes with her ability to parent; at the Sept 2013 hearing the court accepted that allegation and changed the permanency plan from reunification to adoption.
- Mother appealed, arguing (1) the record did not support the change in permanency plan because she had made sufficient progress under the original jurisdictional bases, and (2) DHS failed to prove the new mental-health allegation; appellate court reviewed for legal sufficiency and affirmed both rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DHS/Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mother made sufficient progress to allow reunification (change of permanency plan) | Mother: she made considerable progress in services, improved parenting, and impulsivity is no longer an issue; record does not support change | DHS: despite progress, mother remains unable to provide the structured, stable home A needs; prior failures and ongoing issues show insufficient progress | Court: affirmed — evidence legally sufficient that mother had not made sufficient progress and change to adoption was warranted |
| Whether the court could base permanency decision on maternal mental-health issues not explicitly detailed in the original jurisdictional judgment | Mother: court impermissibly relied on a newly alleged/untested condition (depression/personality disorder) to change permanency | DHS: original admitted allegations (impulsivity, inability to control behavior, lack of parenting motivation/skills) fairly implied underlying mental-health problems; mother had notice and services | Court: affirmed — mother’s mental-health problems were fairly implied by original judgment and could be considered in permanency analysis |
| Whether DHS proved the new allegation that mother’s mental illness impairs parenting (jurisdictional assumption) | Mother: DHS failed to prove the new mental-health allegation by a preponderance of the evidence | DHS: presented evaluations, therapist notes, and testimony (Dr. Sweet) showing depression/personality disorder that interfered with parenting and increased risk to children | Court: affirmed — evidence legally sufficient to support jurisdiction on the new mental-health ground |
| Whether the juvenile court relied on improper factors or denied mother reasonable opportunity to address conditions | Mother: court relied on extrinsic/unadjudicated factors and effectively punished her for conditions not in original judgment | DHS: mother had notice (case history, evaluations, services) and opportunity; failure to follow through supports findings | Court: affirmed — mother had notice and opportunity; reliance on mental-health issues was permissible because those issues were fairly implied and supported by record |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. N. P., 257 Or App 633 (2013) (standard of review and viewing evidence in light most favorable to trial court)
- State v. S. T. S., 236 Or App 646 (2010) (appellate deference to trial-court factual findings)
- Dept. of Human Services v. S. T., 240 Or App 193 (2010) (preponderance standard for changing permanency plan)
- Dept. of Human Services v. A. R. S., 256 Or App 653 (2013) (limits on relying on unadjudicated parental mental-health conditions)
- Dept. of Human Services v. J. R. L., 256 Or App 437 (2013) (jurisdictional judgment must fairly imply conditions used to continue jurisdiction)
- Dept. of Human Services v. G. J. R., 254 Or App 436 (2013) (state meets burden by showing additional allegation creates or enhances current risk of harm)