278 Or. App. 493
Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R.2016Background
- K (born Nov. 2011) was removed from his parents in Aug. 2013; juvenile court assumed jurisdiction in Dec. 2013 based on parents’ stipulations (domestic violence, instability, mental‑health and parenting concerns).
- K has lived with maternal grandparents in foster care since removal and was reported to be thriving there; permanency plan at hearing was reunification with concurrent durable guardianship.
- DHS provided numerous reunification services; parents participated to varying degrees (parenting classes, counseling, domestic violence program, psychological evaluations).
- Evaluations diagnosed significant mental‑health and cognitive limitations for both parents; father made little to no progress, mother showed some progress but lacked insight and had not completed domestic violence treatment.
- Juvenile court found DHS made reasonable efforts, parents were not accurate reporters and lacked sufficient insight, and changed the permanency plan to a durable guardianship with the grandparents (concurrent reunification), concluding adoption was not appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Parents' Argument | DHS/State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS made "reasonable efforts" toward reunification | Mother: DHS failed by not providing a recommended psychiatric medication evaluation | DHS: Reasonable efforts judged on totality; need not provide every recommended service; mother declined evaluation | Court: DHS made reasonable efforts; evidence supports that offer was made and declined by mother |
| Whether parents made sufficient progress to permit reunification within a reasonable time | Parents: They have improved and further services would allow safe return | DHS/Court: Progress is insufficient, especially father; further efforts unlikely to achieve reunification in reasonable time | Court: Parents have not made sufficient progress; father little/no progress; mother’s progress uncertain and unlikely within a year |
| Whether changing permanency plan from reunification to durable guardianship was appropriate | Mother: Guardianship is practically indistinguishable from current care and modifiable, so reunification should continue | DHS/Court: Guardianship provides greater permanency and protects best interests while preserving family connections; adoption not appropriate | Court: Change to durable guardianship affirmed as best interests, given duration of wardship and insufficient parental progress |
| Whether termination/adoption is required instead of guardianship | Parents: Implicit that less restrictive continuance (reunification) preferable | DHS/Court: Adoption not appropriate; durable guardianship is a suitable long‑term alternative | Court: Termination/adoption not in K’s best interests; durable guardianship proper alternative |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. S. M., 355 Or 241 (explains distinction between durable and permanent guardianships and standards for each)
- Dept. of Human Services v. G. N., 263 Or App 287 (deference to juvenile court factual findings; standard of review)
- Dept. of Human Services v. N. P., 257 Or App 633 (standard for reviewing juvenile court dispositions and viewing evidence in light most favorable to court)
- Dept. of Human Services v. M. K., 257 Or App 409 (reasonable‑efforts inquiry considers totality of circumstances and burdens/benefits of services)