Department of Human Services v. S. J. M.
283 Or. App. 592
| Or. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Mother’s son L was removed from her care after L was physically abused by mother’s live‑in partner, Bosch; juvenile court placed L with a maternal aunt and set reunification as the case plan.
- Mother completed court‑ordered services, engaged in weekly therapy with L, and participated in supervised visits; DHS acknowledged improvement in mother’s parenting skills.
- Mother continued living with and prioritizing Bosch, advocated for his contact with L despite therapist Schnabel’s recommendation against it, and Bosch still exhibited anger issues and had not taken responsibility for abusing L.
- L showed trauma from the abuse (anxiety, behavioral and speech issues, medical needs) and had a strong, positive attachment to his foster mother; Schnabel viewed mother as L’s primary attachment figure but cautioned against Bosch contact.
- At a permanency hearing ~15 months after removal, the juvenile court found DHS had made reasonable reunification efforts but concluded mother had not made sufficient progress to safely reunify L and that there were no compelling reasons to defer filing a termination petition; the court changed the plan to adoption.
- On appeal, mother challenged both determinations; the Court of Appeals affirmed insufficient‑progress ruling but reversed on the compelling‑reasons finding and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DHS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mother made "sufficient progress" under ORS 419B.476(2)(a) to permit safe reunification | Mother: She completed services and improved parenting skills, so she made sufficient progress | DHS: Despite progress, mother still could not protect L from Bosch and had no separate safe home | Court: Affirmed juvenile court—record supported finding mother had not made sufficient progress |
| Whether a "compelling reason" under ORS 419B.498(2)(b) existed to defer filing a termination petition | Mother: Her successful participation in services (and bond with L) were compelling reasons to delay termination and preclude changing plan to adoption | DHS: No compelling reason in the record; even if mother participated, facts justified proceeding toward termination and adoption | Court: Reversed juvenile court—record lacked evidence to rebut that mother’s successful participation could be a compelling reason; deferral should have been allowed, so change to adoption was error |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. S. J. M., 283 Or. App. 367 (Or. Ct. App. 2017) (companion opinion analyzing sufficiency of progress and compelling‑reasons framework)
- Dept. of Human Services v. N. P., 257 Or. App. 633 (Or. Ct. App. 2013) (standard of review and legal‑sufficiency principles for juvenile‑court factual determinations)