Department of Human Services v. C. L. H.
283 Or. App. 313
| Or. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- M (born June 2014) is a medically fragile infant with multiple intestinal atresias, prior surgeries, feeding‑tube needs, dietary restrictions, and MRSA; foster parents implemented strict infection‑control and feeding care.
- DHS took custody after hospital staff reported parents’ inability to meet M’s special needs and incidents of aggressive behavior by parents; juvenile court assumed dependency jurisdiction in January 2015 and ordered services for father (anger management, parent training, safety plan, housing help).
- Father visited rarely while M was hospitalized, did not participate in services or contact DHS from October 2014–March 2015, and was incarcerated in March 2015 (release projected April 2017).
- DHS did not contact father or his prison counselor for more than six months after learning his incarceration; once contact began, interactions were limited (telephone only, few photos, no in‑person meetings), DHS did not assess prison program adequacy, and did not provide targeted education about M’s medical needs.
- At the March 2016 permanency hearing DHS sought to change the plan from reunification to adoption; juvenile court found DHS’s efforts were “minimally reasonable” and changed the plan; father appealed arguing DHS failed to make reasonable efforts.
- The Court of Appeals reversed: it held the juvenile court erred by failing to apply a proper cost‑benefit analysis and by finding DHS made reasonable efforts where DHS had not timely or sufficiently engaged father or assessed prison services relevant to the jurisdictional bases.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | DHS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS made “reasonable efforts” to make reunification possible | DHS failed to maintain contact, failed to assess prison programs, and failed to provide training specific to M’s medical needs, so efforts were not reasonable | Father was largely absent early in the case and then incarcerated; even greater DHS efforts would not have overcome incarceration or materially advanced reunification | Reversed: DHS did not show reasonable efforts; court must consider whether providing specific services would reasonably benefit the reunification plan (cost‑benefit) and DHS here failed to do so |
| Proper application of the required cost‑benefit analysis when DHS declines specific services | DHS should have performed a cost‑benefit inquiry (burden vs. expected benefit) for training and program assessment tied to jurisdictional bases | DHS contended incarceration and timing made additional services futile | Held that the juvenile court misapplied S.W.; benefit must be assessed by reference to the service’s importance to ameliorating the jurisdictional bases, not by whether reunification was ultimately likely because of incarceration |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to change permanency plan away from reunification | DHS’s limited contacts and lack of program assessment left an inadequate record to judge father’s ability to benefit from services | DHS relied on father’s pre‑incarceration nonengagement and the length of his sentence to support minimal efforts | Held insufficient evidence: DHS’s long lapse in contact and failure to assess or provide relevant services meant the court lacked a sufficient basis to find reasonable efforts over a period adequate to assess parental progress |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. S. W., 267 Or. App. 277 (Or. App. 2014) (affirming reasonable‑efforts finding where DHS had substantial early efforts and lengthy case history showing parent’s nonresponsiveness)
- Dept. of Human Services v. M. K., 257 Or. App. 409 (Or. App. 2013) (requires a cost‑benefit analysis considering burden to the state and expected benefit to reunification when DHS declines a service deemed key)
- Dept. of Human Services v. J. M., 275 Or. App. 429 (Or. App. 2015) (reasonable‑efforts finding upheld where subsequent DHS efforts and parent responses provided evidence tied to benefit from services)
- Dept. of Human Services v. S. M. H., 283 Or. App. 295 (Or. App. 2017) (agency’s prolonged failure to contact an incarcerated parent can render its overall efforts insufficient)
- Dept. of Human Services v. S. S., 278 Or. App. 725 (Or. App. 2016) (courts must evaluate DHS efforts over the life of the case and allow sufficient time to assess parental progress)