319 Or. App. 81
Or. Ct. App.2022Background:
- Juvenile court assumed jurisdiction over three children in April 2019 based on mother’s substance abuse and anger-control problems.
- In March 2021 the court instructed DHS to offer mother a dual-diagnosis residential program to treat co-occurring substance use and mental-health disorders.
- At the July–August 2021 permanency hearing mother was at the Oregon State Hospital; DHS had referred her to three dual-diagnosis programs but each required a recent mental-health evaluation from the hospital.
- DHS had not obtained the hospital evaluation because the hospital required a protective order before disclosing it; the court issued that order on August 10, but DHS still had not received the evaluation by the August 19 hearing.
- Despite the missing evaluation and the resulting absence of an actual dual-diagnosis placement offer, the juvenile court changed the permanency plan from reunification to adoption.
- Mother appealed, arguing DHS had not made reasonable efforts to effect reunification; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (M. W.) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS made reasonable efforts to effect reunification before changing plan | DHS did not provide sufficient, timely services (no actual dual-diagnosis placement) | DHS had referred mother to programs and pursued evaluation; delays were institutional | Reversed — efforts had not gone on long enough; plan change premature |
| Whether institutional barriers (hospital confidentiality) excuse DHS’s failure to secure services | Institutional delays do not justify cutting off reunification when court ordered dual-diagnosis services | Institutional barriers impeded DHS’s ability to obtain evaluation and offer placement | Held: Institutional barriers do not categorically excuse DHS; DHS must take administrative steps and allow time for services to be provided |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. K. G. T., 306 Or App 368 (Or. Ct. App. 2020) (before changing plan, DHS must prove reasonable efforts and parental progress were insufficient)
- Dept. of Human Services v. L. L. S., 290 Or App 132 (Or. Ct. App. 2018) (reasonable efforts must give parent a chance to become minimally adequate)
- Dept. of Human Services v. W. M., 310 Or App 594 (Or. Ct. App. 2021) (efforts must continue long enough for meaningful assessment)
- Dept. of Human Services v. M. C. C., 303 Or App 372 (Or. Ct. App. 2020) (institutional barriers do not categorically excuse DHS from reasonable-efforts requirement)