Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Dep't of Human Servs. v. D. L. G. (In re A. G.)
Citations: 439 P.3d 1031; 296 Or. App. 789Docket: A167739 (Control), A167740
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon; March 27, 2019; Oregon; State Appellate Court
Mother and father appeal the juvenile court's decision to change their child's permanency plan from reunification to adoption. They argue that there was insufficient evidence to support the court's finding that no other permanency plan would better meet the child's needs. The appeal is influenced by the Oregon Supreme Court's ruling in Dept. of Human Services v. S. J. M., which established that the party seeking to assert an exception to prompt termination petition filing bears the burden of proof. The child, A, was removed from the parents' custody due to concerns about substance abuse, unsanitary living conditions, and the parents' untreated mental health issues, which impaired their ability to care for her. Despite referrals to parenting resources and supervised visits, DHS concluded that the parents had not made adequate progress, prompting the change in the permanency plan. The juvenile court previously held that DHS bore the burden of proving the absence of compelling reasons to avoid filing for termination, but the Supreme Court's ruling shifted this burden to the parents asserting an exception. Since the parents failed to demonstrate that an exception applied, their arguments on appeal were rejected, leading to the affirmation of the juvenile court's judgments. The Supreme Court's decision in S. J. M. was deemed pivotal by the Department of Human Services (DHS), impacting the appeal concerning parental interests. The father subsequently argued for a remand to allow him to demonstrate compelling reasons against changing the child's permanency plan from reunification to adoption. DHS contended that a remand was unnecessary, asserting that the father had ample opportunity to present a favorable record. Previous cases (Dept. of Human Services v. S. J. K. and Dept. of Human Services v. G. P. B.) indicated that remands were not warranted even with legal changes, particularly noting ORS 419B.470(6), which allows parents to request a new permanency hearing. The court ultimately affirmed the juvenile court's decision to change the permanency plan to adoption, concluding that no errors were made in this context. ORS 419B.476(5)(d) and ORS 419B.498(2) outline the conditions under which a petition to terminate parental rights must be filed, highlighting scenarios where compelling reasons might preclude such action. The mother did not respond to DHS's arguments or address the implications of S. J. M. on the case. The court is required to hold a permanency hearing upon request, as stipulated by ORS 419B.470(6).