2017 ORS 419B.185¹
Evidentiary hearing

(1) When a child or ward is taken, or is about to be taken, into protective custody pursuant to ORS 419B.150 (When protective custody authorized), 419B.160 (Place of detention), 419B.165 (Release of child taken into custody), 419B.168 (Procedure when child is not released) and 419B.171 (Report required when child is taken into custody) and placed in detention or shelter care, a parent, child or ward shall be given the opportunity to present evidence to the court at the hearings specified in ORS 419B.183 (Speedy hearing required), and at any subsequent review hearing, that the child or ward can be returned home without further danger of suffering physical injury or emotional harm, endangering or harming others, or not remaining within the reach of the court process prior to adjudication. At the hearing:

(a) The court shall make written findings as to whether the Department of Human Services has made reasonable efforts or, if the Indian Child Welfare Act applies, active efforts to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child or ward from the home and to make it possible for the child or ward to safely return home. When the court finds that no services were provided but that reasonable services would not have eliminated the need for protective custody, the court shall consider the department to have made reasonable efforts or, if the Indian Child Welfare Act applies, active efforts to prevent or eliminate the need for protective custody. The court shall include in the written findings a brief description of the preventive and reunification efforts made by the department.

(b) In determining whether a child or ward shall be removed or continued out of home, the court shall consider whether the provision of reasonable services can prevent or eliminate the need to separate the family.

(c) In determining whether the department has made reasonable efforts or, if the Indian Child Welfare Act applies, active efforts to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child or ward from the home and to make it possible for the child or ward to safely return home, the court shall consider the child or ward’s health and safety the paramount concerns.

(d) The court shall make a written finding in every order of removal that describes why it is in the best interests of the child or ward that the child or ward be removed from the home or continued in care.

(e) When the court determines that a child or ward shall be removed from the home or continued in care, the court shall make written findings whether the department made diligent efforts pursuant to ORS 419B.192 (Placement of child or ward). The court shall include in its written findings a brief description of the efforts made by the department.

(f) The court shall determine whether the child or ward is an Indian child as defined in ORS 419A.004 (Definitions) or in the applicable State-Tribal Indian Child Welfare Agreement.

(g) The court may receive testimony, reports and other evidence without regard to whether the evidence is admissible under ORS 40.010 (Rule 100. Short title) to 40.210 (Rule 412. Sex offense cases) and 40.310 (Rule 601. General rule of competency) to 40.585 (Rule 1008. Functions of court and jury) if the evidence is relevant to the determinations and findings required under this section. As used in this paragraph, “relevant evidence” has the meaning given that term in ORS 40.150 (Rule 401. Definition of “relevant evidence”).

(2) To aid the court in making the written findings required by subsection (1)(a), (d) and (e) of this section, the department shall present written documentation to the court outlining:

(a) The efforts made to prevent taking the child or ward into protective custody and to provide services to make it possible for the child or ward to safely return home;

(b) The efforts the department made pursuant to ORS 419B.192 (Placement of child or ward); and

(c) Why protective custody is in the best interests of the child or ward. [1993 c.33 §71; 1993 c.295 §5; 1993 c.546 §123; 1997 c.873 §19; 1999 c.859 §8; 2001 c.686 §3; 2003 c.355 §1; 2003 c.396 §42; 2007 c.806 §4]

Notes of Decisions

Under Former Similar Statutes

Due process does not require the appoint­ment of “independent counsel” to represent the child in every adop­tion or termina­tion of parental rights pro­ceed­ing. F. v. C., 24 Or App 601, 547 P2d 175 (1976)

When sec­ond termina­tion of parental rights pro­ceed­ing was not itself barred, proof was not limited by res judicata or collateral estoppel principles to facts or evidence which was not considered in or which came in to being after first pro­ceed­ing. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Newman, 49 Or App 221, 619 P2d 901 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

Chapter 419B

Notes of Decisions

Due process rights of parents are al­ways implicated in construc­tion and applica­tion of pro­vi­sions of this chapter. Depart­ment of Human Services v. J.R.F., 351 Or 570, 273 P3d 87 (2012)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 419B—Juvenile Code: Dependency, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors419B.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 419B, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano419B.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.