373 Or. 26
Or.2024Background
- A.H. was born prematurely with special medical needs and was placed in foster care shortly after birth due to concerns about the ability of her parents (both with significant cognitive disabilities) to care for her.
- The parents' older children had previously been removed from their custody by California authorities, which was part of the concern for A.H.'s safety.
- The juvenile court assumed dependency jurisdiction; the initial permanency plan was reunification, but after about two years of services, DHS requested to change the plan to adoption.
- DHS provided parents with a wide array of referrals for support, parenting classes, disability services, counseling, mentoring, and housing assistance, but parents inconsistently engaged in services and failed to progress to unsupervised visitation.
- The parents, who are Black, asserted that DHS was not culturally sensitive, specifically concerning a dispute over hair care between them and the foster (white) parent, and that DHS's efforts were not sufficiently tailored to their cognitive disabilities or cultural needs.
- The juvenile court changed the permanency plan to adoption, and both the Court of Appeals and Oregon Supreme Court affirmed, finding DHS's efforts reasonable under the totality of circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Parents' Argument | DHS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS made "reasonable efforts" to reunify the family as required by law | DHS failed to tailor efforts to parents’ cognitive and cultural needs, and breakdown in communication was DHS’s fault | DHS made numerous efforts, including tailored services and accommodations, and lack of parent engagement was the main barrier | DHS made reasonable efforts considering the totality of the circumstances |
| Whether the juvenile court erred in finding no compelling reason adoption would not be in A.H.'s best interest | Other permanent plans (like guardianship) would be better given the parent-child bond and insufficient efforts to reunify | Parents failed to provide a viable permanent alternative to adoption; reunification wasn't possible within reasonable time | No compelling reason against adoption; adoption is in A.H.'s best interest |
| Whether DHS’s handling of the hair care dispute constituted a failure of reasonable efforts | DHS was culturally and racially insensitive, damaging relationships and reunification opportunity | Acknowledged shortcomings but maintained overall efforts were still reasonable | DHS fell short, but overall efforts still satisfied legal standards |
| Whether a parent’s lack of engagement in services should affect the reasonable efforts analysis | Disabilities and system barriers, not lack of will, prevented full service engagement | Parents’ failure to cooperate impeded their own progress regardless of disability accommodations | Parents’ lack of follow-through was a key barrier; their actions are relevant to the reasonableness analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. Y.B., 372 Or 133 (2024) (standard for review of sufficient progress in dependency hearings is legal, fact-intensive, not de novo)
- State v. Iseli, 366 Or 151 (2020) (reasonableness is construed in light of the totality of circumstances)
- Dept. of Human Services v. S.J.M., 364 Or 37 (2018) (compelling reason exception to statutory timeline for termination of parental rights)
- State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Smith, 316 Or 646 (1993) (totality of circumstances approach in juvenile context)