278 Or. App. 503
Lane Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R.2016Background
- DHS filed dependency petitions in Oct 2014; juvenile court took jurisdiction and placed the children in DHS custody; children later removed from mother and placed in foster care.
- The court entered dispositional judgments in February 2015, returned the children to mother in May 2015, then removed them again in July 2015 and placed them in foster care.
- On July 17, 2015, the juvenile court entered disposition review judgments continuing foster placement and finding DHS had made reasonable efforts to reunify.
- At an August 2015 review hearing mother challenged the reasonable-efforts finding (arguing DHS failed to consider an in-home safety plan) and asked for return of the children.
- The court in August expressly continued the July orders (placement and reasonable-efforts finding); mother appealed that August judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DHS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a disposition-review judgment that continues placement and repeats a prior reasonable-efforts finding is appealable under ORS 419A.200(1) | A judgment containing a reasonable-efforts determination adversely affects parental rights/duties (it can delay permanency or termination filings), so it is appealable | Such a judgment merely continues the prior status quo and does not newly affect mother’s rights or duties; therefore it is not appealable under precedent | Judgment not appealable; appeal dismissed |
| Whether mother’s August challenge required new/changed circumstances to make the August order appealable | The court erred on the merits in finding DHS made reasonable efforts (no in-home safety plan was considered) | The August hearing merely re-urged issues already decided in July; mother presented no changed circumstances or new evidence to disturb prior finding | Because mother did not present changed circumstances or new information, the August orders merely continued prior rulings and were not appealable |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Vockrodt, 147 Or. App. 4 (Or. Ct. App. 1997) (continued wardship and reasonable-efforts finding did not render review order appealable)
- State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Nagle, 36 Or. App. 237 (Or. Ct. App. 1978) (review order that merely continued prior disposition and did not change rights/duties is not appealable)
- Dept. of Human Services v. C. B., 228 Or. App. 85 (Or. Ct. App. 2009) (review judgment not appealable where it did not change child’s status from prior disposition)
- State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. L. V., 219 Or. App. 207 (Or. Ct. App. 2008) (permanency judgment was appealable where court rejected a specifically requested plan)
- Dept. of Human Services v. J. F. D., 255 Or. App. 742 (Or. Ct. App. 2013) (noting that erroneous reasonable-efforts findings can require remand because they may delay subsequent proceedings)
- State ex rel SOSCF v. Imus, 179 Or. App. 33 (Or. Ct. App. 2002) (agency’s duties may be affected by juvenile court orders and thus can be appealable)
- State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Brown, 175 Or. App. 1 (Or. Ct. App. 2001) (review order that did not change conditions of wardship was not appealable; a later order creating a new placement ruling was appealable)