Dep't of Human Servs. v. M. E. (In re D. E.)

1

325 Or.App. 101

In the Matter of D. E., a Child.

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. M. E., Appellant.

A179365

Court of Appeals of Oregon

March 29, 2023

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 February 14, 2023

Clackamas County Circuit Court 20JU05405 Todd L. Van Rysselberghe, Judge.

Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section and Sarah Peterson, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Stacy M. Chaffin, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, and Mooney, Judge, and Pagan, Judge.

Affirmed.

MOONEY, J.

In this dependency case, father appeals from a permanency judgment that changes the permanency plan for his child, D, from reunification to guardianship. He assigns error to the juvenile court's determination that the Department of Human Services (DHS) used reasonable efforts to reunify father and D, and to the order changing D's permanency plan from reunification to guardianship. We conclude that the juvenile court did not err in making its reasonable efforts determination, and that it did not err in changing the plan to guardianship. We, therefore, affirm.

"[W]e view the evidence, as supplemented and buttressed by permissible derivative inferences, in the light most favorable to the trial court's disposition and assess whether, when so viewed, the record was legally sufficient to permit that outcome." Dept. of Human Services v. N P., 257 Or.App. 633, 639, 307 P.3d 444 (2013). Whether the efforts of DHS were reasonable, for purposes of ORS 419B.476(2)(a), is a question of law that we review for legal error. Dept. of Human Services v. K. G. T., 306 Or.App. 368, 370, 473 P.3d 131 (2020).

Dependency jurisdiction was established in December of 2020 at a hearing after each parent made certain admissions, exhibits were received, and testimony was taken. As relevant here, father admitted (1) that he engaged in such a high level of conflict with mother that it creates a risk of harm to D, and (2) that, when D is in father's care, he makes emotionally abusive statements to D, which presents a risk of harm to D. Allegations that father had exposed D to domestic violence were dismissed. D has been a ward of the court and in the legal custody of DHS since then.

When conducting a permanency hearing in a case where the plan is reunification, the juvenile court is required to determine whether DHS "has made reasonable efforts * * * to make it possible for the ward to safely return home and whether the parent has made sufficient progress to make it possible for the ward to safely return home. In making its determination, the court shall consider the ward's health and safety the paramount concerns." ORS 419B.476(2)(a).

The court analyzes the reasonableness of DHS's efforts in reference to the adjudicated jurisdictional bases. Dept. of Human Services v. N. T., 247 Or.App. 706, 715, 271 P.3d 143 (2012). In other words, the court looks to see whether DHS has adequately focused its efforts on "fixing what is broken so the family can be reunited." Dept. of Human Services v. P. W., 302 Or.App. 355, 358, 460 P.3d 1044 (2020). DHS's efforts are reasonable when they "focus on ameliorating the adjudicated bases for jurisdiction, and *** give parents a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate their ability to adjust their conduct and become minimally adequate parents." Dept. of Human Services v. W. M, 310 Or.App. 594, 598, 485 P.3d 316 (2021) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Although father does not dispute that his progress has been insufficient to ameliorate the circumstances that resulted in jurisdiction, he...