Conduct of hearing
- court determinations
- orders
Source:
Section 419B.476 — Conduct of hearing; court determinations; orders, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors419B.html.
Notes of Decisions
Where incarceration, immigration detention or other changes relevant to reunification occur during assessment period, Department of Human Services “reasonable efforts” require inquiry into, and arrangement for, services available under circumstances. State ex rel Dept. of Human Services v. H.S.C., 218 Or App 415, 180 P3d 39 (2008)
Petitioner is not required to preserve error in order to challenge lack of statutorily required findings of fact in court order. State ex rel Department of Human Services v. M.A., 227 Or App 172, 205 P3d 36 (2009)
Juvenile court must expressly explain reasons for making change in permanency plan. Department of Human Services v. L.B., 246 Or App 169, 265 P3d 42 (2011)
Juvenile court’s failure to make findings required by ORS 419B.476 (5)(b)(B) does not render judgment defective on its face; findings regarding when ward will be placed for adoption and when petition for termination of rights will be filed does not reflect on substance of juvenile court’s permanency determination or reflect bases for court’s reasoning or ultimate decision. Dept. of Human Services v. T.R., 251 Or App 6, 282 P3d 969 (2012), Sup Ct review denied
Juvenile court has authority to correct error in permanency judgment more than 20 days after permanency hearing. Department of Human Services v. A.J.M., 256 Or App 547, 301 P3d 962 (2013), Sup Ct review denied
When read together with ORS 419B.498, juvenile court may not change child’s permanency plan from reunification to adoption if court determines compelling reason exists to not terminate parental rights, and burden of proving compelling reason falls on party seeking to avoid change of plan. Dept. of Human Services v. S. J. M., 283 Or App 367, 388 P3d 417 (2017), modified Dept. of Human Services v. S. J. M., 364 Or 37, 430 P3d 1021 (2018), Sup Ct review denied
Juvenile court erred by relying on evidence of estrangement between child and father in making permanency determination when estrangement was not established as basis for jurisdiction in case. Dept. of Human Services v. T.L., 287 Or App 753, 403 P3d 488 (2017)
Statutory guardianship test is not applicable once ward’s permanency plan is invalidated, and guardianship must be set aside until new permanency plan is approved. In re: D.J.B., 289 Or App 88, 407 P3d 972 (2017)
Where Department of Human Services does not provide services required under reunification plan to parent, court must engage in “cost-benefit-like analysis” to determine whether department made “reasonable efforts” to reunify child with parent. Dept. of Human Services v. K.G.T., 306 Or App 368, 473 P3d 131 (2020)
Juvenile court erred in finding that Department of Human Services made reasonable efforts to reunify father and child where plain language of judgment of jurisdiction identified father’s autism spectrum disorder with accompanying intellectual impairment as root cause of father’s parenting issues and department failed to make any efforts to investigate availability of services for autistic adults. Dept. of Human Services v. J.D.R., 312 Or App 510, 493 P3d 567 (2021)
Up to date