In this dеpendency case, father appeals from a dis-positional judgment, challenging the juvenile court’s determination that the Department of Human Services (DHS) made reasonable efforts to reunite
On December 31, 2014, DHS removed child, N, from father’s home and placed her in substitute care. N was 15 years old at the time. On January 2, 2015, DHS filed a dependency petition, and McKinstry, a DHS caseworker, met with father to explain the type of reunification services the agency could provide for him, including anger management courses, parenting support, and mental health evaluation and treatment services. Father refused services and did not sign any releases оf information, though it is not clear from the record how the need for releases was communicated to father.
Three months later, on April 1, 2015, the juvenile court asserted jurisdiction over N after concluding that father subjected child to verbal, emotional, and physical abuse and that problems with father’s mental health interfered with his ability to safely parent. The court postponed the dispositional hearing until mid-May 2015.
Two days before the dispositional hearing, father contacted DHS to request a referral for an anger management course and signed a release of information. DHS made the referral on the same day as the dispositiоnal hearing. At the hearing, father objected to DHS’s claim that it had made reasonable reunification efforts. Father contended that DHS had not issued him any referrals until the day of the hearing. DHS did not rebut father’s claim. The court expressed concern about that issue, stating:
“Nobody has to wait for a court order to make a referral. * * * [T]he reasonable efforts have to begin the moment the child is removed so what’s happening in these cases, and this is not the only one, is there’s this dead air that goes on from the time of the shelter hearing until disposition. Even after jurisdiction when there’s a basis for the service there’s no referral made. Now, if you make a referral and the parent declines to participate or refuses to do it that’s on them. * * * [B]ut you can’t just wait for disposition to make these referrals. When I make a reasonable efforts finding I have to make a finding [of whether] the agency made reasonable efforts from the date the child was removed until today to ameliorate those problems. Clearly with regard to those two items that has not been done”
(Emphasis added.) Miranda, another DHS caseworker, responded,
“[W]e need to have releases of information and we *** asked for those prior and we never got releases and I cannot submit referrals for anything without a release of information[.] *** I was told that everything had to run through the attorneys and I had no release of information.”
The court then asked Miranda if she requested a release of information from father’s attorney regarding his mental health; she responded that she had not.
Ultimately, in its dispositional judgment, the court checked the bоx indicating that DHS had made reasonable efforts “to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the ward from the home since the date of the last court review.” In particular, the court checked boxes indicating that DHS had issued father referrals for the same services identified in the DHS court report (which DHS did not dispute had not been offered before the hearing): anger management counseling, mental health evaluation/treatment, specialized parent training, counseling,
On appeal, father contends that the court erred by determining that DHS’s reunification efforts were reasonable. Father admits that he declined services initially, but he maintains that DHS’s failure to offer services thereafter, especially after the court asserted jurisdiction in April 2015, was unreasonable. He points out that DHS did not explain why a lack of a release of information precluded it from making any referrals. According to father, “the department is obligated to make reunification efforts regardless of the parent’s release of information from a service provider to the department or from the department to a service provider.” (Emphasis in original.)
DHS, in contrast, maintains that its reunification efforts were rеasonable. It argues that, to determine whether DHS made reasonable efforts, we consider the particular circumstances of a case, including whether the parent attempted to make the necessary changes or refused to participate in the required service plans. DHS notes that father initially dеclined services, failed to provide any releases of information, and did not contact DHS to indicate that he had changed his mind about participating in services. In addition, it points out that child was in counseling and did not want visits with father. DHS asserts that, under those circumstances, its efforts were reasonable.
Furthermore, DHS argues thаt even if its efforts were not reasonable, that conclusion does not require a reversal of the dispositional judgment because the error asserted by father is harmless. According to DHS, correcting the judgment would serve no purpose, because N “will still be a ward of the court, and father will still be required to engage in serviсes.” That is, DHS disagrees with our conclusion in J. F. D.,
“[a] juvenile court’s reasonable-efforts finding at the disposition stage does not affect the timing of a petition to terminate parental rights. Rather, the juvenile court must make a new reasonable-efforts finding based on everything that has transpired in the case, and not simply on what happened prior to its disposition judgment.”
Child agrees that DHS’s reunification efforts were reasonable. She argues that, because father initially declined services, it was reasonable for DHS not to offer services again until after the court asserted jurisdiction. Child also notes that N was receiving counseling, which is a reunification service. Ultimately, child contends that, although “DHS arguably should have offered services again in the six weeks between the dаte jurisdiction was established and the dis-positional hearing, DHS’s delay was not unreasonable under the circumstances.”
In J. F. D., we explained the policy behind the reasonable efforts requirement:
“It is the policy of the State of Oregon to offer ‘appropriate reunification services’ to parents when a child hаs entered protective custody and a dependency petition has been filed. ORS 419B.090(5). Pursuant to that policy, DHS generally is required to make ‘reasonable efforts’ to make possible a child’s safe return home while the dependency case is pending. ORS 419B.340(1); ORS 419B.476(2)(a). To ensure compliance, the juvenile court is required tо determine whether DHS has satisfied that mandate at the dispo-sitional hearing, which generally occurs 60 days after the petition is filed. ORS 419B.305(1); ORS 419B.340(1).”
“‘whether the department has made reasonable efforts * * * to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the ward from the home. If the ward has been removed prior to the entry of the order, the order shall also include a determination whether the department has made reasonable * * * efforts to make it possible for the ward to safely return home.’ ORS 419B.340(1)."
J. F. D.,
In this case, we first сonsider whether there is evidence in the record to support the juvenile court’s factual findings as to services provided to father. We conclude that the findings in the dispositional judgment regarding all of the referrals identified by checked boxes,
Second, we consider whether the court erred by determining that DHS’s reunification efforts were reasonable. In DHS’s view, fathеr’s lack of interest and failure to engage with services and N’s desire not to visit with father are sufficient facts to demonstrate that DHS’s failure to provide services was reasonable. We disagree. Although we generally consider the particular circumstances of a case, including the parent’s degree of cooperation,
In this case, although father was initially uncooperative, DHS did not demonstrate that it made any subsequent attempts to provide, or even to offer, father services. At the dispositional hearing, the caseworker stated that she had not issued any referrals because she had not received a release of information from father; however, the record does not describe whether and how the necessity of a release was communicated to father, nor does it contain аny information about whether and why DHS is precluded from making a referral without a release. Furthermore, even assuming that claim is true, the record does not indicate why, in this case, DHS made no additional attempts to obtain a release from father, especially after the court asserted jurisdiction.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand the disposi-tional judgment to allow for the entry of a new judgment reflecting the correct reasonable efforts determination. See J. F. D.,
It is true that, at the permanency stage, a court must assess whether DHS made reasonable efforts for a sufficient period of time to allow for an assessment of the parent’s prоgress. State ex rel Dept. of Human Services v. E. K.,
Reversed and remanded for correction of reasonable efforts determination; otherwise affirmed.
Notes
Mother is not a party to this appeal.
Miranda also indicated that N was engagеd in counseling and had declined visits with father.
We also concluded that the use of the term “reasonable efforts” throughout the Juvenile Code suggests “that the term’s general meaning remains the same” throughout the dependency proceedings. J. F. D.,
In determining whether DHS made reasonable efforts, “[w]e also consider whether a pаrent has attempted to make appropriate changes and whether he or she ignored or refused to participate in plans as required by DHS.” Dept. of Human Services v. T. S.,
The court did not make any findings suggesting that any further efforts by DHS to have father sign a release of information or to engage in services would have been futile, and DHS does not point to any evidence in the record to support such inference.