517 P.3d 1044
Or. Ct. App.2022Background
- J (then 12) was removed after suicidal ideation and refusal of needed psychiatric care; DHS gained custody in Jan 2020 and reunification with mother remained the permanency plan.
- J has serious mental-health needs (major depression, anxiety, PTSD, self-harm) and moved through multiple therapeutic placements and residential care; providers consistently recommended residential treatment and routine family therapy/therapeutic visitation.
- The juvenile court ordered in October 2020 that in-person therapeutic visits begin “as soon as possible.”
- In the 14 months after J entered care, only 5–6 family-therapy sessions occurred, almost all remote, facilitated by J’s individual therapist (not a neutral family therapist); only one session was in person.
- At the permanency hearing the court found DHS made reasonable efforts and ordered mother to submit to a psychological evaluation; mother appealed both the reasonable-efforts supplemental findings and the psych-evaluation order.
- The Court of Appeals held the reasonable-efforts finding was legal error (reversed and remanded) and vacated/remanded the psych-evaluation order for failure to make the W. C. T. factual findings; the appeal of the psych-eval order was not moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS made "reasonable efforts" to enable reunification under ORS 419B.476(2)(a) | DHS failed to provide the key service (in-person, neutral family therapy/therapeutic visitation) despite providers’ recommendations and a court order, denying mother a meaningful chance to repair the relationship. | DHS provided extensive, timely, therapeutically appropriate services (individual therapy, some family sessions, WRAP, placements, referrals); efforts were sufficient. | Reversed: efforts were not reasonable because in-person neutral family therapy—central to reunification—was not provided for months despite the court order and provider consensus. |
| Whether the order requiring mother to submit to a psychological evaluation was appealable/moot and legally proper | Appeal not moot; vacatur could limit or exclude use of the evaluation in future proceedings; the juvenile court failed to make the W. C. T. four-part factual findings required before ordering an evaluation. | Moot because mother later submitted to and disclosed the evaluation; waiver. | Appeal not moot; DHS conceded the court omitted the W. C. T. findings. The psych-evaluation order was vacated and remanded for application of W. C. T. standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. W. C. T., 314 Or App 743 (Or. Ct. App. 2021) (sets four-part factual-findings standard before ordering psychological evaluations)
- Dept. of Human Services v. W. M., 310 Or App 594 (Or. Ct. App. 2021) (DHS must allow time for pandemic-delayed, case-critical services to assess parental progress)
- Dept. of Human Services v. J. F. D., 255 Or App 742 (Or. Ct. App. 2013) (when reasonable-efforts finding is changed on appeal, a new judgment is required)
- Dept. of Human Services v. K. G. T., 306 Or App 368 (Or. Ct. App. 2020) (legal standard for reviewing reasonable-efforts determinations)
- Dept. of Human Services v. M. K., 285 Or App 448 (Or. Ct. App. 2017) (therapeutic visitation may be unnecessary when children refuse and it would be harmful)
- Dept. of Human Services v. T. L. H., 300 Or App 606 (Or. Ct. App. 2019) (appeal of evaluation-order not moot where evaluation could affect future proceedings)