493 P.3d 567
Or. Ct. App.2021Background
- J, born August 2017, was removed from parents’ care after DHS involvement beginning March 2018 for neglect and an unsafe/unsanitary home; both parents showed developmental limitations.
- In the November 2019 jurisdictional judgment father admitted he had been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder with accompanying intellectual impairment that "impacted his ability to safely parent" and stated he needed DHS and court assistance.
- By the time of the November 4, 2020 permanency hearing J was in foster care and DHS had been providing standard services (visits, in‑home checks, referrals to Options, parent training, in‑home assistance) primarily focusing on mother.
- DHS had not investigated or referred father to services specifically tailored to autistic adults; the DHS caseworker admitted no contact had been made with a potential autism specialist.
- The juvenile court found DHS had made reasonable efforts to reunify, ordered DHS to search for a therapist skilled with autistic adults, and continued a reunification permanency plan.
- Father appealed, arguing DHS’s reasonable‑efforts finding was erroneous because the agency failed to address the jurisdictional root cause: his diagnosed ASD and related intellectual impairment.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | DHS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS made reasonable efforts to reunify given the jurisdictional finding that father’s ASD and intellectual impairment caused unsafe parenting and living conditions | DHS was required to attempt services directed at the root cause (autism) because the jurisdictional language expressly identified ASD with intellectual impairment as the source of parenting deficits | DHS provided standard reunification services directed at parenting and home conditions; father was on notice to remedy unsafe supervision and living conditions and DHS’s services addressed those issues | Reversed on reasonable‑efforts point: DHS’s efforts were not reasonable because it never investigated or provided services tailored to father’s diagnosed ASD, which the jurisdictional basis identified as the root cause |
| Whether DHS’s failure to seek autism‑specific services was excused by case complications (mother’s greater progress; uncertain couple status) | Those complications do not excuse DHS’s duty to pursue individualized efforts for each parent, including investigating autism‑specific services | Practical complications affected casework; provided services were appropriate efforts given mother’s greater engagement and the couple’s unclear status | Not persuasive: court held such complications did not relieve DHS of the obligation to investigate services for autistic adults in light of the specific jurisdictional language |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. K. G. T., 306 Or App 368 (appellate court bound by juvenile court factual findings if supported by any evidence; reasonable‑efforts reviewed as legal question)
- Dept. of Human Services v. L. A. K., 306 Or App 706 (jurisdictional language is the critical lens for assessing reasonableness of DHS efforts)
- Dept. of Human Services v. W. M., 310 Or App 594 (reasonable efforts must focus on ameliorating adjudicated bases for jurisdiction)
- Dept. of Human Services v. S. M. H., 283 Or App 295 (DHS must make reunification efforts directed at each parent individually)
- Dept. of Human Services v. T. R., 251 Or App 6 (type and sufficiency of efforts depend on case specifics)
- Dept. of Human Services v. D. M. D., 301 Or App 148 (where a needed service was not provided, courts consider potential benefits that service could have yielded)
- Dept. of Human Services v. D. M. R., 301 Or App 436 (services unrelated to the controlling jurisdictional basis do not satisfy the reasonable‑efforts requirement)