Department of Human Services v. T. S.
267 Or. App. 301
| Or. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- T born Dec 31, 2010; DHS opened a dependency after reports of domestic violence and parental drug use; T placed with maternal aunt.
- Father admitted drug abuse impaired his parenting, was ordered to complete evaluations, treatment, parenting classes, maintain contact with DHS, clear warrants, and keep visitation.
- Father had intermittent engagement: short treatment at Salvation Army in June–July 2012, then left; incarcerated at various times (late 2012–mid 2013); while incarcerated he undertook prison programs and repeatedly requested contact with T.
- DHS primarily focused services and reunification efforts on mother; DHS had little or no contact with father for roughly one year (mid‑2012 to mid‑2013) despite father’s requests for assistance in arranging phone/in‑person contact with T.
- A juvenile referee changed the permanency plan from reunification to adoption in Dec 2013, finding DHS had made reasonable efforts to reunify; the court affirmed. Father appealed, arguing DHS’s efforts toward him were not reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS made reasonable efforts to reunify father and T | DHS failed to contact or assist father for ~1 year, ignored his repeated requests for phone/visitation, and focused on mother instead | DHS contends efforts should be assessed over the life of the case and that its work with mother was reasonable; services were provided when appropriate | Reversed: DHS did not make reasonable efforts as to father; failure to engage him for lengthy period was impermissible |
| Whether the appellate court should review de novo | Father sought de novo review of the permanency order | DHS opposed de novo review | Court declined de novo review and applied the usual sufficiency/abuse‑of‑discretion standard |
| Whether DHS may prioritize one parent’s reunification to the exclusion of the other | Father argued DHS cannot ignore one parent even if the other is more viable | DHS argued totality of efforts (primarily with mother) sufficed | Court held DHS must make reasonable efforts to each parent; prioritizing mother did not excuse failing to assist father |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Williams, 204 Or. App. 496 (court held virtually nonexistent efforts to an incarcerated parent were insufficient)
- Dept. of Human Services v. D. L. H., 251 Or. App. 787 (reasonable efforts found where DHS contacted incarcerated parent, offered evaluation, and communicated with prison counselor)
- Dept. of Human Services v. M. K., 257 Or. App. 409 (reasonable‑efforts inquiry must weigh burdens on state and expected benefit)
- Dept. of Human Services v. J. F. D., 255 Or. App. 742 (DHS must assess and make reasonable efforts as to each parent individually)
- State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. J. L. M., 220 Or. App. 93 (reasonable‑efforts assessed over life of the case)
- State ex rel SOSCF v. Frazier, 152 Or. App. 568 (framework for what state must do to preserve parental rights)