Dept. of Human Services v. M. O. B., 493 P.3d 553

Newborn R was removed shortly after birth (shelter-care order Dec 5, 2019). DHS alleged father had a history of assaultive behavior, substance abuse, and lacked parenting skills.
Records showed prior methamphetamine possession/probation revocation and a criminal history including assault/strangulation; DHS reported father assaulted R’s mother on May 27, 2020 and later pled guilty to domestic-violence charges.
Between removal and the June 16, 2020 jurisdiction hearing DHS offered multiple services; father attended visits, engaged with an addiction-recovery team and urinalysis testing, but declined some in-home services.
At the June 16 hearing father admitted jurisdictional bases (need for DHS assistance and domestic-violence conduct placing the child at risk). DHS moved for a comprehensive psychological evaluation to identify appropriate services.
The juvenile court ordered the psychological evaluation under ORS 419B.387. Father appealed, arguing the court exceeded its statutory authority by using an evaluation as a discovery tool to establish need.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the juvenile court exceeded its authority under ORS 419B.387 by ordering a psychological evaluation	Father: The order functioned as a discovery mechanism to determine if treatment or training was needed, which D.R.D. forbids	DHS: Record evidence (history of assaultive behavior, impulsivity, substance issues, prior service nonengagement, and the May 2020 assault) established a need; the evaluation was a component of needed treatment/training	Affirmed: Court found legally sufficient evidence that a need for treatment/training existed and that a psychological evaluation was a component of that remediation, so the order was authorized under ORS 419B.387
Whether ordering the evaluation at the time jurisdiction was entered was premature	Father: Ordering the evaluation on the day jurisdiction was taken (before court-ordered services had been completed) was premature and effectively allowed evaluations in virtually every dependency case	DHS: The six months since removal, DHS’s prior efforts, father’s conduct after removal, and evidence presented at the hearing justified ordering the evaluation at that point	Held: Court held the timing was permissible on this record because a predicate finding of need had been made and the evaluation would help tailor required treatment/training

Dept. of Human Services v. D. R. D., 298 Or App 788 (2019) (ORS 419B.387 permits court-ordered psychological evaluation only after evidentiary finding of need; evaluation may be a component of treatment but may not be used merely as discovery)
Dept. of Human Services v. T. L. H., 300 Or App 606 (2019) (affirming psych-evaluation order where child had high needs and record showed father’s limitations made evaluation necessary to tailor services)
Dept. of Human Services v. L. J. W., 302 Or App 126 (2020) (discussing authority to order psych evaluations in dependency proceedings)
Dept. of Human Services v. P. W., 302 Or App 355 (2020) (describing ORS 419B.387 as governing remedial treatment/training orders tied to reunification)
Dept. of Human Services v. M. H., 266 Or App 361 (2014) (policy against leaving children indefinitely in placement limbo)
Dept. of Human Services v. J. E. R., 293 Or App 387 (2018) (parents generally not required to engage in services before jurisdiction is taken)
Dept. of Human Services v. S. W., 267 Or App 277 (2014) (reunification goal: parents become minimally adequate)