Dept. of Human Services v. K. G. T.
306 Or. App. 368
| Or. Ct. App. | 2020Background
- B (born 2015) was removed from relatives' care; juvenile court asserted jurisdiction based largely on father’s substance abuse, untreated/uncertain mental health, residential instability, and inability to parent.
- Father was incarcerated in 2018 for multiple crimes; his earliest release was several months after the permanency hearing.
- DHS kept limited contact (a few calls, a small number of visits and video contacts) and relied on DOC to provide required services (substance abuse treatment, DHS‑approved parent training, mental health services).
- DOC offered virtually no services relevant to the case plan (only NA meetings, an unrecognized parenting course, and cognitive thinking classes); DOC determined father did not qualify for mental health services.
- DHS did not explore or present evidence about providing DHS/CWP‑approved services in prison (costs, feasibility, or alternative delivery), except an uncompleted offer of a mental‑health assessment.
- Juvenile court changed permanency plan from reunification to adoption, finding DHS made reasonable efforts; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding DHS failed to prove reasonable efforts because it never considered options beyond DOC nor supported a cost‑benefit analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS made "reasonable efforts" to reunify B with father under ORS 419B.476(2)(a) | Father: DHS could not satisfy its burden by relying only on DOC when DOC lacked services; DHS failed to give father a reasonable opportunity to address jurisdictional bases. | DHS: Incarceration and DOC’s lack of services made in‑prison services impracticable; DHS reasonably relied on DOC and need not bear outsized costs or delay permanency. | Reversed: DHS did not meet its burden. It failed to consider providing services beyond DOC or to present cost/benefit evidence, so the juvenile court erred in finding reasonable efforts. |
| Whether DHS may forgo a cost‑benefit analysis when DOC lacks needed programs | Father: DHS must at least consider and present alternatives and their costs/benefits before stopping efforts. | DHS: If DOC offers nothing, it is reasonable not to provide services in prison; requiring DHS to send staff into prisons is not reasonable. | Court: DHS must show impossibility or perform a cost‑benefit‑style analysis tied to ameliorating jurisdictional bases; mere reliance on DOC’s limitations is insufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. M. K., 257 Or App 409 (agency must weigh cost against expected benefit when declining key in‑prison services)
- Dept. of Human Services v. C. L. H., 283 Or App 313 (benefit inquiry focuses on potential effect on jurisdictional bases and parent’s opportunity to demonstrate improvement)
- Dept. of Human Services v. S. W., 267 Or App 277 (totality of circumstances can support reasonable efforts despite diminished contact, where evidence shows benefit unlikely)
- Dept. of Human Services v. S. M. H., 283 Or App 295 (DHS bears the burden to prove it made reasonable efforts)
- Dept. of Human Services v. L. L. S., 290 Or App 132 (incarceration does not automatically relieve DHS of reasonable‑efforts obligation)