S069996
Or.Mar 28, 2024Background
- In July 2019, A's mother (Y.B.) lost custody of her 18-month-old son (A) due to an incident involving physical abuse, resulting in a broken arm and bruises, and A was made a ward of the court and committed to DHS custody.
- Mother was subsequently convicted of fourth-degree assault (acquitted of criminal mistreatment), and the court entered dependency jurisdiction due to the conviction and mother's need for parenting skills and training.
- Mother received services and participated in therapy and parenting programs; A was returned home briefly in 2021 but removed again after concerns about mother's parenting practices, including tying A's arm with a jump rope as discipline and locking herself away from the child.
- DHS requested a change in the permanency plan from reunification to guardianship, citing insufficient progress by mother despite reasonable reunification efforts.
- The juvenile court changed the plan to guardianship after concluding mother made insufficient progress; the decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and mother sought Oregon Supreme Court review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nature of "sufficient progress" under ORS 419B.476(2)(a) | Sufficient progress means amelioration such that safe return is possible within a reasonable time; is a legal question. | Sufficient progress is a factual question; defer to juvenile court if any evidence supports it. | "Sufficient progress" is a legal conclusion, though fact-dependent; appellate courts review for error of law. |
| Standard for permanency plan change | Should be whether sufficient progress has been made for safe return, not whether all issues are fully fixed. | Accepts the inquiry is about safe return, but asserts ample evidence shows mother's progress insufficient for A's safety. | The statutory inquiry is whether progress suffices for safe return (not full amelioration), but insufficient progress found here. |
| Sufficiency of DHS’s reunification efforts | Not directly challenged by mother at Oregon Supreme Court. | DHS provided reasonable efforts/services for reunification. | Agreed: Record legally sufficient to support reasonable DHS efforts. |
| Legal sufficiency of court’s findings for plan change | Mother argued evidence showed significant progress, and concerns about bias; insufficient as a matter of law to change plan. | DHS argued evidence of ongoing safety risks and lack of practical parental progress supports plan change. | Affirmed: Evidence supported insufficient progress; legal standard correctly applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. T. L., 358 Or 679 (Or. 2016) (explains the burden on DHS and consequence of plan changes in dependency cases)
- Dept. of Human Services v. S. J. M., 364 Or 37 (Or. 2018) (articulates standard of appellate review in dependency and permanency cases)
- Dept. of Human Services v. N. P., 257 Or App 633 (Or. Ct. App. 2013) (discusses legal sufficiency review for continued dependency jurisdiction)