340 Or. App. 179
Or. Ct. App.2025Background
- Juvenile court established jurisdiction over N and S, two children, in January 2023 due to the father’s failure to protect them from abuse, neglect, unsafe individuals, and hazardous conditions.
- The Department of Human Services (DHS) facilitated supervised visitation and provided parental education services, counseling referrals, and attempted ongoing engagement with the father.
- Issues arose during visits; the children expressed feeling unsafe, and their therapists recommended suspending visits until the father engaged meaningfully in services and showed understanding of their trauma.
- The father disengaged from DHS-directed services and contact with the children about seven months before the permanency hearing, expressing distrust of DHS and service providers.
- After a permanency hearing, the juvenile court changed the permanency plan for N and S from reunification with the father to guardianship, finding DHS made reasonable efforts and the father’s progress was insufficient.
- Father appealed, arguing DHS’s efforts were not reasonable and that the court relied on facts outside the original adjudicated bases.
Issues
| Issue | Father's Argument | DHS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS made reasonable efforts | DHS failed to help resolve children’s estrangement from father | DHS continued efforts, but father voluntarily disengaged from services | DHS made reasonable efforts under the circumstances |
| Reliance on extrinsic facts by the court | Court improperly relied on children’s/father’s mental health | Mental health issues were implied in adjudicated bases; not extrinsic | No improper reliance on extrinsic facts |
| Father’s progress towards reunification | Not argued/preserved on appeal | Not preserved by father; not before appellate court | Not considered by the appellate court |
| Court’s factual findings supporting plan | Insufficient or improperly based | Supported by record and related to original jurisdictional bases | Factual findings supported; basis for change in plan |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. A. H., 317 Or App 697 (Or. Ct. App. 2022) (sets review standard for DHS reasonable efforts in reunification)
- Dept. of Human Services v. T. L., 287 Or App 753 (Or. Ct. App. 2017) (addresses reliance on facts extrinsic to jurisdictional bases)
- Dept. of Human Services v. C. Z., 236 Or App 436 (Or. Ct. App. 2010) (relates to appellate review of permanency plan changes)
- Dept. of Human Services v. C. H., 373 Or 26 (Or. 2024) (framework for evaluating DHS’s reasonable efforts in light of bases for jurisdiction)
- Dept. of Human Services v. S. S., 337 Or App 270 (Or. Ct. App. 2025) (estrangement does not bar reasonable efforts finding)