Oregon Appellate Ct - Jan 5, 2017
by: Sara Werboff • January 9, 2017 • no comments
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<summary hidden> | <summary hidden> | ||
| − | * | + | *Juvenile Dependency - Insufficient Evidence that DHS Made Reasonable Efforts |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
* | * | ||
* | * | ||
</summary> | </summary> | ||
| + | |||
| Line 11: | Line 10: | ||
| + | '''Juvenile Dependency - Insufficient Evidence that DHS Made Reasonable Efforts''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | The court reverses a judgment changing the permanency plan for the child, M, from reunification to adoption. M was born with serious health issues and DHS became involved almost immediately after hospital staff expressed concerns that parents were volatile and could not properly care for M. After M was put in foster care, father did not visit M nor did he engage in any court-ordered services. Father thereafter was convicted of a crime and incarcerated. Eight months after he was incarcerated, father had contact with a caseworker who provided some information about M's medical needs but did not provide any specific information about how to meet those needs. The caseworker also determined that because of M's health issues, she would not be able to visit father in prison. At the permanency hearing, the caseworker testified that father's incarceration had been an impediment to providing services. Father testified that he was willing to learn what was necessary to care for M. | ||
| + | |||
| + | In order to change a permanency plan, DHS must establish that it made reasonable efforts to make it possible for a child to reunify with his or her parents and, as a separate inquiry, that notwithstanding those efforts, the parent's progress was insufficient to make reunification possible. Here, the court concludes that the juvenile court erred because it determined that, even if DHS had made all reasonable efforts, those efforts would not have made reunification possible. That ruling conflates the "reasonable efforts" and "sufficient progress" inquiries. Further, with respect to "reasonable efforts," the juvenile court is required to engage in a "cost-benefit" analysis when a parent points to a specific failure to provide services. The court explains that the "benefit" prong of that analysis requires the juvenile court to consider the importance of the service to the case plan and the extent to which that service was capable of ameliorating the jurisdictional bases. Here, however, the juvenile court improperly considered only whether the particular service would make reunification possible. Even if a parent is incarcerated, DHS must still make reasonable efforts. Because DHS did not do so here, the court reverses the permanency judgment. | ||
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A162133.pdf DHS v. C.L.H.], 283 Or App 313 (2017) (Garrett, J.) | [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A162133.pdf DHS v. C.L.H.], 283 Or App 313 (2017) (Garrett, J.) | ||
Revision as of 11:02, January 10, 2017
DHS v. S.M.H., 283 Or App 295 (2017) (Garrett, J.)
Juvenile Dependency - Insufficient Evidence that DHS Made Reasonable Efforts
The court reverses a judgment changing the permanency plan for the child, M, from reunification to adoption. M was born with serious health issues and DHS became involved almost immediately after hospital staff expressed concerns that parents were volatile and could not properly care for M. After M was put in foster care, father did not visit M nor did he engage in any court-ordered services. Father thereafter was convicted of a crime and incarcerated. Eight months after he was incarcerated, father had contact with a caseworker who provided some information about M's medical needs but did not provide any specific information about how to meet those needs. The caseworker also determined that because of M's health issues, she would not be able to visit father in prison. At the permanency hearing, the caseworker testified that father's incarceration had been an impediment to providing services. Father testified that he was willing to learn what was necessary to care for M.
In order to change a permanency plan, DHS must establish that it made reasonable efforts to make it possible for a child to reunify with his or her parents and, as a separate inquiry, that notwithstanding those efforts, the parent's progress was insufficient to make reunification possible. Here, the court concludes that the juvenile court erred because it determined that, even if DHS had made all reasonable efforts, those efforts would not have made reunification possible. That ruling conflates the "reasonable efforts" and "sufficient progress" inquiries. Further, with respect to "reasonable efforts," the juvenile court is required to engage in a "cost-benefit" analysis when a parent points to a specific failure to provide services. The court explains that the "benefit" prong of that analysis requires the juvenile court to consider the importance of the service to the case plan and the extent to which that service was capable of ameliorating the jurisdictional bases. Here, however, the juvenile court improperly considered only whether the particular service would make reunification possible. Even if a parent is incarcerated, DHS must still make reasonable efforts. Because DHS did not do so here, the court reverses the permanency judgment.
DHS v. C.L.H., 283 Or App 313 (2017) (Garrett, J.)
State v. Lien/Wilverding, 283 Or App 334 (2017) (Shorr, J.)
