Dept. of Human Services v. J. D.

320 Or. App. 402

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: June 15, 2022
• Docket: A177431
• Status: Published

Opinion

Submitted May 6, reversed June 15, 2022

In the Matter of C. W., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. J. D., Appellant. Umatilla County Circuit Court 19JU01290; A177431 (Control) In the Matter of S. W., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. J. D., Appellant. Umatilla County Circuit Court 19JU01292; A177432 In the Matter of O. W., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. J. D., Appellant. Umatilla County Circuit Court 19JU01293; A177433 512 P3d 1282

Robert W. Collins, Jr., Judge. Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Sarah Peterson, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Cite as 320 Or App 402 (2022) 403

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Joanna Hershey, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Powers, Presiding Judge, and Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Hellman, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed. 404 Dept. of Human Services v. J. D.

PER CURIAM In these three consolidated dependency cases, mother challenges the juvenile court’s judgment chang- ing her children’s permanency plans from reunification to adoption. Mother challenges the juvenile court’s determina- tion that the Department of Humans Services (DHS) made reasonable efforts to reunify mother with the children but that notwithstanding its efforts, mother made insufficient progress to make it possible for the children to return home. Because the court’s reasons for concluding that mother had made insufficient progress did not relate to the basis for the court’s jurisdiction over the children, DHS concedes that the juvenile court erred. We agree that the juvenile court erred and reverse. A detailed recitation of the facts would not bene- fit the bench, the bar, or the public. Briefly stated, in 2019, the court took jurisdiction over the three children based on mother’s and father’s admissions that they had provided inadequate supervision to the two younger children.1 In 2021, DHS moved to change the children’s plans from reuni- fication to adoption, asserting that mother had participated in but had not yet completed drug and alcohol treatment, had tested positive for methamphetamine the prior year, had participated in a mental health evaluation but had not received mental health treatment, and had continued to have contact with father. DHS presented evidence to sup- port those allegations at a hearing. After the hearing, the court stated that mother’s inability to adequately supervise the children related to her mental health issues, drug and alcohol issues, and her focus on her relationship with father. The court concluded that mother’s “failure to engage in ser- vices,” and her continuation of “a very destructive and vio- lent relationship” with father, created a situation where she had not made sufficient progress for the children to return home. To change a permanency plan from reunification to adoption under ORS 419B.476, DHS must prove by a pre- ponderance of the evidence that it made reasonable efforts 1 Father did not participate in the permanency hearing and is not a party to this consolidated appeal. Cite as 320 Or App 402 (2022) 405

to reunify the parent and child or children under the juve- nile court’s jurisdiction, and that, notwithstanding those efforts, the parent’s progress, if any, was insufficient to allow reunification. Dept. of Human Services v. R. B., 263 Or App 735, 745, 329 P3d 787 (2014). DHS’s efforts, as well as the parent’s progress, are evaluated by reference to the facts that formed the bases for juvenile court jurisdiction. Dept. of Human Services v. C. M. E., 278 Or App 297, 307, 374 P3d 969 (2016). As mother notes, when a juvenile court relies on facts concerning an “underlying cause” for the basis of its jurisdiction, that underlying cause needs to be sufficiently identified in the jurisdictional judgment to provide a par- ent with the information needed to address the issue. See generally Dept. of Human Services v. C. E., 288 Or App 649, 658, 406 P3d 211 (2017). As DHS acknowledges, the juris- dictional judgments here directed mother to follow mental health and substance abuse treatment recommendations, but did not order her to complete such treatments, or to ter- minate her relationship with father to achieve reunification. In this circumstance, the juvenile court erred in concluding that mother’s progress was insufficient to allow reunifica- tion based on facts that were extraneous to the basis for jurisdiction. Reversed.