562 P.3d 670
Or. Ct. App.2025Background
- X. S., a 17-year-old, was removed from her mother's care after disclosing sexual abuse by her mother's partner; the mother did not believe her, leading to a physical altercation and police involvement.
- The juvenile court found jurisdiction based on mother’s failure to protect, lack of safe parenting skills, exposure to harm after the disclosure, and emotional abuse of X.
- DHS provided mother with ordered services, including psychological evaluation, parent education, family violence assessment, and supervised visitation.
- Despite participating in services, mother continued to disbelieve X’s abuse claims and refused to take steps necessary for family therapy or meaningful reunification.
- The permanency plan was changed from reunification to another planned permanent living arrangement (APPLA) due to the lack of progress and X's unwillingness to engage with her mother.
- Mother appealed, challenging the sufficiency of DHS's efforts and whether the court improperly relied on parent-child estrangement outside the original jurisdictional bases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS made reasonable reunification efforts | DHS did not provide services to bridge X’s alienation | DHS provided all required services; progress was mother's job | DHS’s efforts were reasonable |
| Was mother’s progress toward reunification sufficient | Only estrangement remains, not a basis for jurisdiction | Mother failed to address original jurisdictional concerns | Mother’s progress was insufficient |
| Did the court rely on extrinsic facts (estrangement) | The plan change was based on non-jurisdictional estrangement | Lack of progress on jurisdictional bases justified APPLA | No legal error; reliance was appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. J. F. D., 255 Or App 742 (standard of review for findings of fact in permanency cases)
- Dept. of Human Services v. R. W., 277 Or App 37 (standard for reviewing legal conclusions in juvenile cases)
- Dept. of Human Services v. S. J. M., 364 Or 37 (reviewing evidence in light most favorable to disposition)
- Dept. of Human Services v. T. F., 331 Or App 682 (facts reviewed from record at time of permanency change)
- Dept. of Human Services v. T. L., 287 Or App 753 (when reliance on estrangement is legally permissible)
- Dept. of Human Services v. S. M. H., 283 Or App 295 (measuring reasonableness of efforts through jurisdictional lens)
- Dept. of Human Services v. M. K., 257 Or App 409 (reasonableness judged by totality of circumstances)
- Dept. of Human Services v. C. S. C., 303 Or App 399 (child’s health and safety as paramount)
- Dept. of Human Services v. P. W., 302 Or App 355 (services must address basis for court jurisdiction)
- Dept. of Human Services v. K. G. T., 306 Or App 368 (parental progress measured by remediation of jurisdictional circumstances)
- Dept. of Human Services v. Y. B., 372 Or 133 (reasonableness of efforts and progress are fact-driven)
- State ex rel Dept. of Human Services v. S. L., 211 Or App 362 (mere participation in services does not equal progress)