Department of Human Services v. J. R. F.
273 P.3d 87
| Or. | 2012Background
- D.S. is a 14-year-old ward of DHS, with the mother incarcerated and living with father and his girlfriend, Ms. Samuel.
- D.S. has three other children in the home: R (approx. 12, biological brother), G (5–6, not biologically related), and S (D.S.'s half-sister, under 2).
- D.S. reported physical abuse by father; DHS removed her and placed her in foster care; juvenile court assumed jurisdiction over D.S. and her parents.
- Eight months later, at a review under ORS 419B.449, reports showed D.S. desired contact with her siblings, while father reportedly did not want or participate in DHS services.
- The DHS caseworker indicated a proposed visitation order, but DHS had not requested such an order and the record showed conflicts about which siblings could be included.
- The juvenile court ultimately ordered that father will not interfere and will make R available for a holiday party; the court clarified limits about S and G.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to order nonward siblings' visitation | J.R.F. contends ORS 419B.337(3) authorizes only visits by ward’s parents or siblings who are within the court’s jurisdiction. | DHS argues that read in context, statutes authorize any order necessary for the ward’s best interests, including visits with nonward siblings. | Record inadequate; statute interpretation required; reverse and remand. |
| Constitutional due process constraints on parental rights | Father contends order infringes Troxel protections of parental decision-making. | DHS concedes due process considerations apply; record insufficient to assess impact on parental rights. | Not resolved on preserved claim; record inadequate to assess due process impact. |
| Adequacy of the trial court record and findings | Record did not show proper findings and inconsistencies between oral statements and written order. | Court’s intended scope and authority were not clearly supported by the record as written. | Record inadequate to support the order; remand for proper development. |
| Statutory construction and scope of juvenile court authority | Court should be limited to explicit statutory authorities; no clear basis to reach beyond. | Taken as a whole, juvenile code permits orders necessary for welfare, beyond isolated subsections. | Court must interpret in context; authority not clearly established; remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (presumption in parental rights; due process constraints)
- Lane County v. LCDC, 325 Or. 569 (1997) (statutory interpretation must harmonize statutes)
- Stull v. Hoke, 326 Or. 72 (1997) (statutory interpretation requires considering context)
- Dept. of Human Services v. J.R.F., 244 Or.App. 363 (2011) (Court of Appeals recognition of authority issues under ORS 419B.337)