Department of Human Services v. C. M. E.
278 Or. App. 297
| Clatsop Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. | 2016Background
- DHS removed M from mother shortly after his 2007 birth due to mother’s severe mental-health and substance-abuse problems; M was returned in 2010 but later removed again in 2014 after deterioration in mother’s functioning.
- Juvenile court assumed jurisdiction in May 2014 based on mother’s mental-health problems and inability to safely parent; M was placed with nonrelative foster parents with whom he had a strong attachment.
- Mother engaged in services (psychological evaluations, medication management, counseling, parent-empowerment and hands-on home-visiting programs) between late 2014 and mid-2015 and made some progress but continued to exhibit limited parental role, shallow insight, and difficulty meeting M’s needs.
- DHS proposed an in-home safety plan relying on twice-daily “check-ins” by mother’s support network (grandmother named guardian, listed on lease, has home access) to permit reunification; DHS and mother urged continuing reunification.
- At the August 2015 permanency hearing the juvenile court found DHS had made reasonable efforts but concluded mother had not made sufficient progress to safely reunify M within a reasonable time and changed the permanency plan to adoption; the court also found no compelling reason to forgo filing to terminate parental rights.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DHS/Court’s/Respondents’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mother made sufficient progress to permit M’s safe return (ORS 419B.476(2)(a)) | Mother: Her sustained treatment, medication compliance, and services rendered her able to parent with a safety plan; reunification should remain case plan. | DHS/Court: Although mother participated, she retained limited insight, unstable parental role, and could not be relied on to safely parent even with monitoring. | Court affirmed: evidence sufficient to find mother had not made sufficient progress to permit safe return. |
| Whether participation in services is a "compelling reason" to avoid changing plan to adoption (ORS 419B.498(2)(b)(A)) | Mother: Ongoing engagement in services makes filing a termination petition inappropriate. | DHS/Court: Participation alone insufficient where progress does not reasonably permit return within a child-centered timeframe. | Court affirmed: services participation did not compel keeping reunification. |
| Whether mother–child bond is a compelling reason to avoid adoption (ORS 419B.498(2)(b)(B)) | Mother: Loving bond with M favors a non-adoption permanency plan to preserve relationship. | DHS/Court: Child’s preference and strong foster-family attachment, plus mother’s limited parental role, outweigh bond argument. | Court affirmed: bond was not a compelling reason to avoid adoption. |
| Whether DHS’s earlier failure to provide services bars changing plan to adoption (ORS 419B.498(2)(c)) | Mother: DHS did not provide services during early months (while mother hospitalized/incarcerated), so adoption plan is inappropriate. | DHS/Court: Earlier insufficiency does not preclude a later determination that overall efforts were reasonable; mother did not argue overall efforts remained deficient. | Court affirmed: prior service delay did not establish a continuing basis to forgo adoption. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. N. P., 257 Or App 633 (appellate review standard for juvenile dispositions) (discusses limited scope of appellate review of juvenile court findings)
- State ex rel Dept. of Human Services v. H. S. C., 218 Or App 415 (requirements for permanency hearing when reunification plan exists)
- Dept. of Human Services v. N. T., 247 Or App 706 (use jurisdictional findings to frame DHS efforts and parental progress analysis)
- State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. K. D., 228 Or App 506 (same principle: link jurisdictional basis to review of efforts/progress)
- Dept. of Human Services v. M. H., 266 Or App 361 (requirement that court evaluate DHS decision to change permanency plan; child-centered inquiry)
- Dept. of Human Services v. N. S., 246 Or App 341 (parental participation in services alone does not establish sufficient progress)
- Dept. of Human Services v. R. S., 270 Or App 522 (court may conclude plan should change despite some parental progress)
- State ex rel Dept. of Human Services v. Smith, 338 Or 58 (discussing limits on conditioning reunification solely on independent parenting ability)
- Dept. of Human Services v. T. M. S., 273 Or App 286 (discusses bond argument and best-interest analysis)
- Dept. of Human Services v. A. R. S., 249 Or App 603 (distinguishes when reliance on live-in supports affects reunification analysis)
- Dept. of Human Services v. B. L. J., 246 Or App 767 (jurisdiction error where safe parenting ensured by alternate placement)
- Dept. of Human Services v. A. H., 275 Or App 788 (placement with relatives can negate need for juvenile jurisdiction)