Dept. of Human Services v. V. A. R.
301 Or. App. 565
| Or. Ct. App. | 2019Background
- Juvenile court assumed jurisdiction over W in March 2017 based on parents' conflict and mother’s lack of parenting skills; W is a special‑needs child and both he and mother have developmental disabilities.
- A July 2017 psychological evaluation recommended specialized, hands‑on, in‑person parent training that works with mother and child together.
- DHS initially provided remote/Skype parenting training and did not implement hands‑on training for most of the case; the juvenile court ordered increased in‑person training in June 2018, and DHS began it in September 2018.
- By the December 2018 permanency hearing, mother had completed only five hands‑on training sessions; mother had accepted and participated in services throughout the case.
- The juvenile court found DHS’s efforts reasonable and changed the permanency plan to placement with a fit and willing relative; the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding DHS’s reunification efforts were not reasonable given the late start of hands‑on training.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS made "reasonable efforts" to reunify under ORS 419B.476(2)(a) | DHS delayed required hands‑on parent training; only five sessions before the hearing did not give mother a reasonable opportunity to become a minimally adequate parent | DHS arranged services and constraints slowed in‑person training; efforts were sufficient | Reversed — efforts were not reasonable because hands‑on training began too late to allow a meaningful evaluation of mother’s ability to parent |
| Whether mother’s intellectual disability made reunification futile so DHS could stop reasonable‑efforts obligation | N/A (mother contends services could help if timely provided) | Mother’s intellectual disability so impairs parenting that further efforts would be futile | Rejected — DHS did not seek statutory relief from reunification obligations and, given delayed services, futility could not be assumed at the hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. L. L. S., 290 Or App 132 (2018) (sets out the predicate determinations required before changing permanency plan and frames the reasonable‑efforts inquiry)
- Dept. of Human Services v. S. M. H., 283 Or App 295 (2017) (defines "reasonable efforts" as actions focused on ameliorating adjudicated bases for jurisdiction and giving parents a reasonable opportunity to become minimally adequate)
- Dept. of Human Services v. R. D., 257 Or App 427 (2013) (holds that a long delay in providing necessary services can render DHS’s reunification efforts unreasonable)