Dept. of Human Services v. M. A. T.

321 Or. App. 778

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: September 14, 2022
• Docket: A177699
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1). Submitted July 7, affirmed September 14, 2022, petition for review denied January 19, 2023 (370 Or 714)

In the Matter of H. R. T., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. M. A. T., Appellant. Jackson County Circuit Court 18JU06005; A177699 (Control) In the Matter of J. A. T., aka J. T. G., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. M. A. T., aka M. A. T., Appellant. Jackson County Circuit Court 19JU03449; A177701 In the Matter of H. R. T., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. M. A. T., Appellant. Jackson County Circuit Court 20JU05364; A177702 Nonprecedential Memo Op: 321 Or App 778 (2022) 779

In the Matter of J. A. T., aka J. T. G., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. M. A. T., Appellant. Jackson County Circuit Court 20JU05365; A177703

David J. Orr, Judge. Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Elena C. Stross, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Shannon T. Reel, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, and Mooney, Judge, and Pagán, Judge. PAGÁN, J. Affirmed. 780 Dept. of Human Services v. M. A. T.

PAGÁN, J. Mother appeals from two juvenile judgments mod- ifying permanency plans from reunification to permanent guardianship. Specifically, mother assigns error to the trial court’s finding that mother failed to make sufficient prog- ress under ORS 419B.476(2)(a), which was, in part, the basis of the court’s decision to change the permanency plan. In those circumstances, “we review the facts found by the juve- nile court to determine whether they are supported by any evidence and then to determine if, as a matter of law, those facts provide a basis for the juvenile court’s change of the permanency plan from reunification to guardianship under ORS 419B.476.” Dept. of Human Services v. A. H., 317 Or App 697, 699, 505 P3d 1064 (2022). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the juvenile court’s factual findings are supported by evidence and those facts provide a basis for the court’s change of the permanency plan. Specifically, the evidence supported find- ings that mother failed to engage in mental health treat- ment, failed to maintain employment or housing, and failed to demonstrate a willingness or ability to provide for her children’s particular needs. Considering the evidence of the children’s particular needs, along with mother’s history of mental health problems that directly affected her parenting, we conclude that the evidence provided a basis to change the permanency plan to permanent guardianship, and the juve- nile court therefore did not commit legal error in changing the plan. Affirmed.