Department of Human Services v. J. M.
275 Or. App. 429
| Or. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Infant C was removed after a pediatrician found a cheek bruise and x‑rays suggesting a distal tibial metaphyseal fracture; parents earlier admitted allegations that C sustained an unexplained tibial fracture while in their care and that their lack of parenting skills impaired provision of minimally adequate care.
- Parents had ongoing supervised visitation, attended some services (parenting classes, anger management, skills trainers), but father did not complete anger management and parents delayed engaging in autism‑related services for C.
- C was later diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, language disorder, and global developmental delays; DHS informed foster parents and provided them services but delayed informing parents for several months.
- Evaluations: mother assessed as defensive with dependent‑personality traits and poor prognosis for change; father showed anger‑control problems and provisional antisocial traits; parent‑child assessments indicated C had a primary attachment to foster parents and only a tertiary attachment to parents.
- Juvenile court denied parents’ motion to dismiss jurisdiction and changed permanency plan from reunification to adoption, finding DHS made reasonable efforts and parents’ progress was insufficient; parents appealed claiming insufficient evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Parents' Argument | DHS' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jurisdiction should be dismissed (no current, reasonably likely risk) | Parents: unexplained injury alone doesn’t show present risk; parents completed services and had been parenting another child without DHS jurisdiction | DHS: without knowing cause of injury and given parents’ limited internalization of services/mental health risks, DHS cannot assure safety; evidence shows ongoing risk | Affirmed: court had legally sufficient evidence of present, reasonably likely risk based on parents’ lack of insight, limited benefit from services, mental‑health concerns, father’s anger issues, and C’s special needs |
| Whether DHS made reasonable efforts and whether plan change to adoption was supported | Parents: DHS unreasonably delayed disclosing C’s developmental diagnoses to parents and providers; earlier disclosure would have produced better results | DHS: disclosure likely would not have produced sufficient engagement; totality of circumstances show reasonable efforts and limited parental progress | Affirmed: reasonable‑efforts finding and insufficiency of parents’ progress supported by record (paramount concern = child’s health and safety) |
| Whether unexplained injury alone required expert testimony that explanation was necessary to reduce risk | Parents: absent expert saying explanation was needed, unexplained injury cannot sustain jurisdiction | DHS: expert testimony not required; totality of evidence (injury nature, service participation, mental health) suffices | Affirmed: court assesses totality; unexplained injury can sustain jurisdiction when tied to other evidence showing present risk |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. S. N. R., 260 Or App 728 (discretionary de novo review is exceptional)
- Dept. of Human Services v. N. P., 257 Or App 633 (appellate review standard viewing evidence in light most favorable to trial court)
- Dept. of Human Services v. J. M., 260 Or App 261 (parental insight vs. likely future conduct is dispositive)
- Dept. of Human Services v. T. R., 251 Or App 6 (unexplained severe injuries and expert testimony supported plan change)
- Dept. of Human Services v. S. P., 249 Or App 76 (standard for continued jurisdiction: current, reasonably likely threat)
- Dept. of Human Services v. W. A. C., 263 Or App 382 (totality of circumstances and contemporaneous risk requirement)
- Dept. of Human Services v. M. K., 257 Or App 409 (reasonableness of DHS reunification efforts judged by totality and expected benefit)