Dept. of Human Services v. L. A. K.
306 Or. App. 706
Or. Ct. App.2020Background
- Juvenile court changed J.’s permanency plan from reunification to guardianship; father appealed arguing DHS failed to make “reasonable efforts” under ORS 419B.476(2)(a).
- The juvenile court found a single jurisdictional basis: “despite prior services offered to the father
- the father has been unable and/or unwilling to overcome the impediments to his ability to provide safe, adequate care to the child” (the term “impediments” was not defined).
- Father has a long history of substance abuse and criminal convictions; DHS alleged separate bases for substance abuse and criminal activity but the court only found the amorphous “impediments” basis proved.
- DHS provided referrals (substance‑abuse treatment, in‑home visits, urinalyses), sent repeated letters of expectations during father’s incarceration, and obtained a psychological evaluation that was delayed and not provided to father until shortly before the permanency hearing.
- Father was incarcerated July 2018–Oct 2019, participated in many prison programs, resumed treatment and regular contact with J after release; J showed marked improvement in foster care.
- The juvenile court concluded DHS made reasonable efforts; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the proven jurisdictional basis was too vague to support DHS’s burden to show a logical link between services and that basis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS made “reasonable efforts” under ORS 419B.476(2)(a) to remediate the adjudicated jurisdictional basis | DHS did not show services reasonably related to the sole, vague adjudicated basis (“impediments”) | “Impediments” meant father’s addiction and criminal activity; DHS’s referrals and planning addressed those issues | Reversed — DHS failed to meet burden because the adjudicated basis was amorphous and DHS did not show a logical link between services and that basis |
| Whether the adjudicated language gave father adequate notice of what conduct to remediate | The vague wording deprived father of notice about what he needed to do to regain custody | DHS points to separately alleged substance‑abuse and criminal paragraphs as notice | Held for father — court cannot rely on an undefined basis or on allegations that were not adjudicated; notice was inadequate |
| Whether DHS timely and effectively communicated and used the psychological evaluation | Father: evaluation was delayed and results were not shared in time to remediate; that undermined DHS’s claim of reasonable efforts | DHS: psychological evaluation and expert testimony supported need for extended remediation | Court observed the delay and questioned the evaluation’s weight but the primary reversal rested on the inadequate jurisdictional basis and lack of linked services |
| Whether the juvenile court may continue jurisdiction based on facts not alleged or proved | Father: court may not continue wardship on unpled or unproven facts | DHS: factual evolution over time can justify flexibility in services and findings | Reaffirmed: court may not base continued jurisdiction on facts never alleged or proven; differences that affect parental rights require amendment/notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. G. N., 263 Or App 287 (appellate review: reasonable‑efforts determination is a legal conclusion reviewed for errors of law)
- Dept. of Human Services v. D. M. R., 301 Or App 436 (warning that amorphous jurisdictional bases make DHS’s burden to prove reasonable efforts more difficult)
- Dept. of Human Services v. S. M. H., 283 Or App 295 (DHS must show a logical link between services provided and the adjudicated jurisdictional basis)
- State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Smith, 316 Or 646 (definition of endangerment and scope of juvenile court jurisdiction)
- Pereida‑Alba v. Coursey, 356 Or 654 (presumption of implicit factual findings only applies when supported and necessary to the court’s conclusion)
- Dept. of Human Services v. J. V.‑G., 277 Or App 201 (juvenile court retains jurisdiction only while the adjudicated bases continue to pose a current threat)