The Oregon Court of Appeals has sided with the Department of Human Services (ODHS) in a case involving a father, T.R.P., and his daughter, H. The court affirmed a juvenile court’s decision to change the permanency plan for H. from reunification with her father to adoption. This decision came after the court found that ODHS had made reasonable efforts to help the father, but he failed to make sufficient progress towards reunification.
The Core Issues at Hand
The father challenged the juvenile court’s ruling on three main grounds. First, he argued that the court wrongly determined that ODHS’s efforts to help him were reasonable. Second, he claimed the court erred in concluding that he hadn’t made enough progress toward getting his daughter back. Finally, he contested the change in the permanency plan to adoption.
The Court’s Reasoning: Reasonable Efforts and Insufficient Progress
The appeals court’s review focused on whether the juvenile court made any errors of law. The court acknowledged that ODHS had the responsibility to prove that a change in the permanency plan was justified.
In its evaluation, the court considered whether ODHS had taken appropriate steps to give the father a fair chance to address the issues that led to the state’s involvement. The original concerns that led to the juvenile court’s involvement included the father’s substance abuse and a lack of parenting skills.
The court found that ODHS had made reasonable efforts, but the father’s lack of cooperation hindered these efforts. Specifically, the father did not take advantage of services offered, like signing a release of information that would have allowed ODHS to refer him to inpatient treatment. The court noted that a parent’s cooperation is relevant when assessing the reasonableness of ODHS’s efforts.
The court also found that the father’s progress was insufficient. He did not make enough progress to warrant a change in the plan, as he did not engage with services.
The Significance of Past History
A significant part of the court’s decision involved the father’s “past history.” The juvenile court referred to the father’s previous involvement in a dependency case with another child, which ended with the termination of his parental rights. The appeals court determined that the juvenile court did not err when considering this past history. The court saw it as evidence of a pattern of behavior where the father failed to take advantage of available services.
The appeals court explained that the juvenile court’s reference to the father’s past history was a way of saying that the father’s lack of action prevented ODHS from helping him. The court felt that waiting three more months would not have changed the situation, given his history.
The Court’s Final Decision
Ultimately, the Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s decision. It concluded that the juvenile court had not made any legal errors and that the change in the permanency plan to adoption was appropriate.