Dep't of Human Servs. v. N.N. (In re A. R. N.)

1

322 Or.App. 357

In the Matter of A. R. N., fka A. R. C., a Child.

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. N. N., aka N. R. C., aka N. R. N., Appellant.

A178371

Court of Appeals of Oregon

October 12, 2022

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 August 30, 2022

Deschutes County Circuit Court 19JU08744 Alicia N. Sykora Judge.

Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Elena Stross, Deputy Public Defender, Offce of Public Defense Services, fled the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Emily N. Snook, Assistant Attorney General, fled the brief for respondent.

Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and Kistler, Senior Judge.

EGAN, J.

Mother appeals a permanency judgment changing the permanency plan for her child, A, from reunification to a durable guardianship with the child's grandmother. In her first assignment of error, mother contends that the juvenile court erred in concluding that DHS's reunification efforts qualified as reasonable. In her second assignment of error mother contends that the juvenile court erred in changing As permanency plan from reunification to guardianship. We affirm.

"[O]n appeal of a permanency judgment, the juvenile court's determination whether DHS's efforts were reasonable is a legal conclusion that we review for errors of law." Dept. of Human Services v. L. L. S., 290 Or.App. 132,133, 413 P.3d 1005 (2018). "In conducting that review, we are bound by the juvenile court's explicit factual findings if there is evidence to support those findings," and "we presume that the court made any necessary implicit factual findings in a manner consistent with its ultimate legal conclusion." Id.

The juvenile court took jurisdiction over A on the basis that mother's mental health impaired her ability to safely parent A. On appeal, mother does not argue that DHS did not make reasonable efforts throughout the life of the case to help mother engage in mental health treatment to ameliorate that basis for jurisdiction. Instead, in a combined argument section, mother argues that, because reunification with A was not possible in the absence of family therapy between mother and A, DHS's failure to facilitate that therapy-specifically, by providing A with information about mother and providing visitation for A and mother- rendered its reunification efforts not reasonable as a matter of law.

The difficulty with mother's argument is that the record contains evidence that A did not want to hear information about mother or have any contact with mother, and that forcing A to hear about mother or have contact with mother against As will would have been harmful to A. It also contains evidence that, despite As reluctance to interact with mother, DHS took steps to facilitate visitation and communication between mother and A, rather than merely acceding to A's...