Dept. of Human Services v. B. F., 507 P.3d 350

Background

DHS filed a dependency petition concerning father’s child; hearings were held remotely because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Father personally appeared by phone at a December 7 status conference and a January 11 trial-readiness hearing; court set trial for April 28–30 and a trial-readiness hearing for April 19 and announced consequences for failing to appear.
The court and parties discussed issuing a written order of the dates to be mailed; the record contains no indication a written order was ever prepared or mailed, and the state concedes no written order exists.
Father did not appear for the April 19 trial-readiness hearing; his counsel told the court he had communicated call‑in information to father and that father was considering waiving rights.
The juvenile court proceeded in father’s absence, took DHS’s prima facie case, adjudicated dependency, made the child a ward, and entered dispositional orders (including requiring a psychological evaluation).
Father appealed, arguing lack of actual notice and challenging multiple dispositional orders; the Court of Appeals affirmed jurisdiction, vacated and remanded only the psychological‑evaluation order, and otherwise affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Father's Argument	DHS's Argument	Held
Whether father received actual notice of the April 19 trial‑readiness hearing and whether adjudication in his absence was improper	Father: court failed to provide actual notice; adjudication and wardship in his absence invalid	DHS: lack-of-notice claim was not preserved; review limited to plain error; evidence suggests father knew or chose not to attend	Court: review limited to plain error; record ambiguous about notice but declined to correct as counsel’s statements showed father knew and chose not to attend; jurisdiction affirmed
Whether proceeding in father’s absence violated his rights and required reversal of adjudication/wardship	Father: absence foreclosed fair adjudication and dispositional orders	DHS: counsel was present and could (and did) address notice and waiver issues; preservation required	Held with above — no relief granted on this ground
Whether the court erred by ordering father to submit to a psychological evaluation	Father: court lacked required findings to order a psych evaluation	DHS: (conceded) appellate law requires findings; plain error applies	Court: state conceded plain error under controlling appellate precedent; psychological‑evaluation order vacated and remanded
Whether other dispositional orders (drug/alcohol eval, mental‑health eval, contact info, housing, releases, visitation, random UAs, attend hearings) were erroneous	Father: orders are invalid and not "treatment or training" under ORS 419B.387; preserves challenges for future law change	DHS: preservation disputed; current case law supports orders; appeals court should not disavow existing precedents	Court: declined to revisit or disavow existing en banc decisions; preserved arguments for Supreme Court review but affirmed orders except for the psych evaluation

Key Cases Cited

Dept. of Human Services v. W. C. T., 314 Or App 743 (Or. App. 2021) (requires specific findings before ordering a psychological evaluation)
Dept. of Human Services v. S. C. T., 281 Or App 246 (Or. App. 2016) (discusses counsel participation when parent is absent and preservation issues)
State v. Terry, 333 Or 163 (Or. 2001) (plain‑error review cannot rely on competing inferences outside the record)
State v. Jury, 185 Or App 132 (Or. App. 2002) (apply the law in effect at time of appeal)
Dept. of Human Services v. F. J. M., 312 Or App 301 (Or. App. 2020) (pending Supreme Court review; potentially relevant to scope of orders)
Dept. of Human Services v. L. S., 310 Or App 382 (Or. App. 2020) (pending Supreme Court review; potentially relevant to scope of orders)
Dept. of Human Services v. N. S. C., 316 Or App 755 (Or. App. 2022) (declines to revisit an en banc decision and discusses limits on overruling court precedent)