Department of Human Services v. R. S.
270 Or. App. 522
| Or. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Mother appeals a permanency judgment changing K's plan from reunification to APPLA (permanent foster care).
- K, now 14, was removed in Feb 2012 due to mother's failure to provide adequate supervision and concerns about her parenting and partners; jurisdiction entered Apr 2012.
- K suffered substantial mental health issues and self-harming behavior; progressed with a foster family after years of placement and services, and expressed desire for permanency with that family.
- At a July 28, 2014 permanency hearing, DHS reported mother had made some progress and engaged in multiple services, but communication and emotional dynamics between mother and K remained troubling.
- The court found DHS made reasonable efforts and that mother had not made sufficient progress for safe return; it changed the plan to APPLA, citing K's best interests and safety concerns.
- Mother challenged (1) potential inconsistency in findings, (2) whether the court relied on best interests rather than statutory findings, and (3) the sufficiency of evidence that K cannot be returned within a reasonable time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the findings consistent with changing to APPLA despite a progress finding? | Mother argues findings are inconsistent: progress implies safe return. | K argues the court allowed sufficient progress but still changed plan for safety. | No inconsistency; progress and safety findings align with ORS 419B.476(2)(a). |
| Did the court improperly base the change on best interests rather than statutory standards? | Mother says the decision rests on best interests, not on reasonable efforts and progress. | K contends the court integrated best interests within statutorily required findings. | Court properly applied statutory analysis and considered best interests as part of the determinations. |
| Was there sufficient evidence that K could not safely be returned within a reasonable time? | Mother asserts more time and services could enable reunification. | K contends the record shows ongoing safety and emotional concerns that prevent return. | Yes; record supports that K could not be safely returned within a reasonable time. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. S. W., 267 Or App 277, 340 P.3d 675 (Or App 2014) (reasonable efforts and progress analyses focus on safety of ward)
- Dept. of Human Services v. L. A. S., 259 Or App 125, 312 P.3d 613 (Or App 2013) (insufficient progress despite some positive changes supports change in plan)
- Dept. of Human Services v. D. L. H., 251 Or App 787, 284 P.3d 1233 (Or App 2012) (no requirement to prove impossibility of reunification before changing plan)
- Dept. of Human Services v. D. A. N., 258 Or App 64, 308 P.3d 303 (Or App 2013) (further efforts discretionary when can make return possible within reasonable time)
- Dept. of Human Services v. J. B. V., 262 Or App 745, 327 P.3d 564 (Or App 2014) (reasonable efforts and safety paramount to ORS 419B.476(2)(a))
- Dept. of Human Services v. S. N., 250 Or App 708, 282 P.3d 901 (Or App 2012) (insufficient progress despite positive visits and class completion)