Dept. of Human Services v. D. E. A., 314 Or. App. 385

Three children (born 2013, 2015, 2018) are enrollable in the Makah Tribe; dependency jurisdiction was asserted in February 2019.
In December 2020 the juvenile court changed the children’s permanency plans from reunification to durable guardianship and approved placement with a maternal relative (M) in Texas under the ICPC.
M was the only known relative placement and would allow the siblings to remain together; the Makah Tribe, the children’s attorney, and the CASA supported guardianship and the Texas placement.
Parents appealed: mother argued DHS failed to make the “active efforts” required by ORS 419B.476(2)(a); father argued DHS failed to make active efforts, that his progress warranted continued reunification planning, and that placing the children in Texas violated ICWA placement requirements (25 U.S.C. § 1915(b)).
The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that reunification was not possible despite efforts and approved Texas placement; the Court of Appeals affirmed both the change of plan and the Texas placement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DHS made the “active efforts” required by ORS 419B.476(2)(a) before changing permanency plans from reunification to guardianship	Mother and father: DHS did not make the required active efforts toward reunification	DHS: active efforts were made and, notwithstanding those efforts, parents’ progress was insufficient to permit reunification	Court: Findings supported by evidence; change to guardianship affirmed
Whether father’s progress was sufficient to continue a reunification plan	Father: his progress warranted continuation of reunification planning	DHS: father’s progress was insufficient despite efforts	Court: father’s progress insufficient; reunification plan properly changed
Whether placing the children with a relative in Texas complied with ICWA placement rules (25 U.S.C. § 1915(b))—in particular the requirement that placement be "within reasonable proximity" and follow placement preferences	Father: Texas is not within reasonable proximity to the children’s home and placement therefore violates § 1915(b)	DHS: placement with M is the least restrictive, family-like, only available preferred relative placement, Tribe supports it, and proximity must be judged in context	Court: "Reasonable proximity" is contextual; given the children’s needs, placement type, Tribe support, siblings staying together, and that plan is guardianship not reunification, Texas was reasonably proximate here and placement was lawful

Dept. of Human Services v. D. L. H., 251 Or. App. 787 (2012) (describing active-efforts requirement under ORS for ICWA cases)
Dept. of Human Services v. T. J., 302 Or. App. 531 (2020) (standard of review in juvenile dependency appeals)
Dept. of Human Services v. J. G., 260 Or. App. 500 (2014) (durable guardianship is governed by ICWA placement rules)
State ex rel. Juv. Dept. v. Charles, 106 Or. App. 637 (1991) (upholding out-of-state placement with relative under § 1915(b) in context)
In re Anthony T., 208 Cal. App. 4th 1019 (2012) (discussing how reunification goals affect reasonableness of placement proximity)