Dept. of Human Services v. C. H.
327 Or. App. 61
| Or. Ct. App. | 2023Background
- A (born Dec. 2019) was removed about two weeks after birth; parents have prior terminations of rights to two older children.
- Neuropsychological evaluations found both parents in the extremely low IQ range with intellectual disabilities and limited insight into parenting; clinicians recommended hands-on parenting coaching, case management, and substantial supports.
- Over ~2.5 years DHS made multiple referrals and offered services: hands-on parenting (Family United), parent mentors, developmental disability services, counseling, housing assistance, and visitation supports; parents engaged inconsistently (participated in some hands-on parenting, missed or declined many other services and appointments).
- A required ongoing physical and occupational therapy and was placed with resource parents who wanted to adopt; a culturally sensitive dispute arose over A’s hair care that strained parents’ relationship with DHS and the first resource parent.
- At the July 2022 permanency hearing the juvenile court found DHS made reasonable efforts, parents had not made sufficient progress to permit return, and there was no compelling reason to forgo adoption; the Court of Appeals affirmed; Judge Jacquot dissented focusing on DHS’s cultural competence and limited outreach.
Issues
| Issue | Parents' Argument | DHS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS made "reasonable efforts" to reunify | DHS failed to provide culturally appropriate, accessible supports and did too little contact in critical months | DHS provided a broad array of tailored services over 2.5 years and the record shows repeated parental non‑engagement | Court: DHS made reasonable efforts overall despite some deficiencies (affirmed) |
| Whether parents made sufficient progress to allow return of A | Parents had positive visits and bond with A; visits showed capacity to parent | Visits were supervised, limited in duration/frequency, and parents failed to engage in services needed for independent or supported parenting | Court: Parents made very little progress; insufficient to permit return (affirmed) |
| Whether a "compelling reason" existed to forgo filing termination (avoid adoption) | The parent–child bond and preserving biological/familial ties is a compelling reason; alternative permanency plans (e.g., guardianship) were not adequately considered | Parents did not show another permanent plan better suited to A’s health and safety; burden to show compelling reason rests with parents | Court: Parents failed to carry burden; no compelling reason to forgo adoption (affirmed) |
| Whether changing permanency plan to adoption was appropriate | Changing to adoption would disrupt A’s family ties; DHS hadn’t exhausted culturally specific supports | Adoption is appropriate given child’s need for permanency and parents’ lack of progress | Court: Changing plan to adoption was appropriate (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. K. G. T., 306 Or. App. 368 (2020) (juvenile-court factual findings reviewed for evidence; standards for reasonable-efforts findings)
- Dept. of Human Services v. V. A. R., 301 Or. App. 565 (2019) (standard for reviewing reasonable-efforts determinations)
- Dept. of Human Services v. G. N., 263 Or. App. 287 (2014) (standard for assessing whether parent made sufficient progress)
- Dept. of Human Services v. S. J. M., 364 Or. 37 (2018) (parents bear burden to show a "compelling reason" not to file termination petition)
- Dept. of Human Services v. M. K., 285 Or. App. 448 (2017) (child's health and welfare is the highest priority in assessing parental progress)
- Dept. of Human Services v. S. S., 278 Or. App. 725 (2016) (reasonable-efforts inquiry spans entire case with emphasis on period before hearing)
- Dept. of Human Services v. R. W., 277 Or. App. 37 (2016) (parental lack of cooperation considered in context of DHS conduct and case circumstances)