Department of Human Services v. R. W.
277 Or. App. 37
| Or. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- DHS removed 15‑year‑old N from father’s home on Dec 31, 2014; dependency petition filed Jan 2, 2015.
- On Jan 2, a DHS worker told father about potential reunification services (anger management, parenting support, mental‑health evaluation), but father initially refused services and did not sign releases.
- Juvenile court asserted jurisdiction on Apr 1, 2015, finding father had abused N and had mental‑health issues; dispositional hearing was continued to mid‑May.
- Two days before disposition (mid‑May), father requested an anger‑management referral and signed a release; DHS made that referral the same day as the hearing.
- At the dispositional hearing, the court checked the box finding DHS had made reasonable efforts and listed multiple referrals as provided, but the record only supports the January notice and the same‑day anger‑management referral.
- Father appealed, arguing DHS failed to offer services during the ~5.5 months between removal and disposition and did not justify that inaction; DHS defended its conduct based on father’s initial refusal and lack of releases.
Issues
| Issue | Father's Argument | DHS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS made reasonable efforts to reunify between removal and disposition | DHS failed to offer services during the ~5.5 months; lack of services unreasonable | Father initially refused services and releases, hampering DHS; child’s counseling and refusal to visit justified limited action | Court held DHS did not make reasonable efforts and erred in its finding; reversal and remand required |
| Whether the dispositional findings that referrals were provided are supported by evidence | Finding inaccurate; most listed referrals were not made before disposition | Argued overall circumstances justified DHS’s conduct (parental refusal) | Court found factual findings unsupported (except for anger‑management referral) |
| Whether a parent’s refusal/releases excuse DHS from making further efforts | Father: DHS must make efforts regardless of releases; refusal does not absolve duty | DHS: parent’s refusal and lack of releases can justify limited activity | Court: parent’s noncooperation is relevant but does not legally excuse DHS; DHS must still take reasonable steps to obtain engagement |
| Whether erroneous reasonable‑efforts finding is harmless on appeal | Father: error requires correction because it has collateral consequences | DHS: error is harmless—case outcome/commitment unaffected and later hearings reassess efforts | Court: error is not harmless; must be corrected because it can affect funding, permanency, and termination decisions |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. J. F. D., 255 Or App 742 (explaining reasonable‑efforts mandate and need to assess efforts for each parent)
- State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Williams, 204 Or App 496 (juvenile court must determine reasonable efforts at dispositional and permanency hearings)
- Dept. of Human Services v. N. S., 246 Or App 341 (parental conduct can hamper DHS, but DHS’s responsive efforts must be evaluated)
- State ex rel Dept. of Human Services v. E. K., 230 Or App 63 (permanency‑stage assessment considers prior DHS efforts)
- Dept. of Human Services v. S. W., 267 Or App 277 (earlier DHS efforts are a factor in totality‑of‑circumstances reasonable‑efforts analysis)
- State ex rel Dept. of Human Services v. H. S. C., 218 Or App 415 (permanency hearing timing and evaluation of reasonable efforts)
- Dept. of Human Services v. T. S., 267 Or App 301 (parent cooperation is a relevant factor in reasonable‑efforts inquiry)