483 P.3d 1248
Or. Ct. App.2021Background
- E (born June 2017) lived mostly with foster parents; briefly reunified with father in March 2018 but removed again in July 2018 after a domestic-violence incident and concerns about physical injuries to the children and an unsafe, unsanitary home.
- Stepmother pleaded an Alford plea to one count of first-degree criminal mistreatment for injuries to E; father admitted jurisdictional allegations (volatile relationship, failure to protect, unsafe home, potential substance use).
- After removal, E exhibited regression and trauma-related behaviors; her counselor testified that safe reunification would require parental acknowledgement of trauma, sustained engagement in E’s therapy, and a 6–8 month therapeutic reintroduction.
- DHS provided multiple reunification efforts: referrals (mental‑health, parenting, BIP), assistance finding licensed counselors, facilitation of contact with E’s counselor, visitation support, housing assistance, and case planning contact.
- Father and stepmother completed some services but minimized or denied past abuse, had inconsistent engagement (late contact with E’s counselor, BIP attendance problems), ongoing relationship instability, and limited application of therapeutic lessons.
- Juvenile court changed the permanency plan from reunification to adoption, finding DHS made reasonable efforts, father had not made sufficient progress, and no compelling reason existed to avoid filing to terminate parental rights; this judgment was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did DHS make reasonable efforts to reunify? | DHS failed to refer further substance‑abuse treatment, did not provide services directly addressing the volatile relationship, and did not allow adequate time to complete BIP. | DHS provided appropriate referrals and supports (assessments, BIP referral, parenting classes, help finding licensed counseling, facilitation of contact with E’s counselor, visitation and travel assistance). | DHS made reasonable efforts. |
| Had father made sufficient progress to permit reunification? | Father and stepmother were successfully parenting a newborn and participating in services, showing sufficient progress. | Father and stepmother minimized past abuse, had inconsistent engagement (BIP, E’s counselor), relationship remained volatile, and they lacked insight needed to protect E. | Father had not made sufficient progress. |
| Was there a compelling reason not to file a termination petition? | Father argued successful service participation meant E could return within a reasonable time; adoption would separate sibling relationships. | Father did not propose an alternate plan or show E could safely return in a reasonable time; ongoing risks and lack of engagement supported termination. | No compelling reason; change to adoption affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. S. J. M., 430 P.3d 1021 (Or. 2018) (review standard for compelling‑reason determinations and that legal conclusions are reviewed for errors of law)
- Dept. of Human Services v. L. L. S., 413 P.3d 1005 (Or. Ct. App. 2018) (juvenile court factual findings binding if supported by evidence; reasonable‑efforts framework)
- Dept. of Human Services v. G. N., 328 P.3d 728 (Or. Ct. App. 2014) (evidence of ongoing harmful behavior supports insufficient‑progress finding)
- Dept. of Human Services v. D. M. R., 455 P.3d 599 (Or. Ct. App. 2019) (burden on DHS to prove reasonable efforts by a preponderance)
- Dept. of Human Services v. D. M. D., 454 P.3d 838 (Or. Ct. App. 2019) (totality of circumstances governs reasonableness of DHS efforts)
- Dept. of Human Services v. S. M. H., 388 P.3d 1204 (Or. Ct. App. 2017) (reasonable‑efforts definition and purpose)
- Dept. of Human Services v. M. K., 396 P.3d 294 (Or. Ct. App. 2017) (child's health and welfare are paramount when assessing parental progress)