Background
The Department of Human Services (DHS) sought to change the permanency plan for a four-year-old child A from reunification to adoption. At a December 2024 jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court announced that the permanency hearing would occur on December 2, 2025, at 8:30 a.m., and this information was noted in the written judgment. However, the judgment and record contained no statement of where the hearing would take place.
When the permanency hearing occurred on December 2, 2025, neither the father nor mother appeared. The father’s attorney requested a continuance, noting uncertainty about whether the father had been properly notified of the hearing details. DHS argued that because the father was present at the December 2024 hearing when the date and time were announced, and notice had been sent to his last address, proper notice had been given. The trial court denied the continuance and proceeded without the father present, ultimately changing the permanency plan to adoption based on the attorney’s participation.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals vacated the permanency judgment. The court held that Oregon Revised Statute 419B.473(2) requires that notice of a permanency hearing must include both the time and the place of the hearing. The statute’s plain language is unambiguous: “The notice shall state the time and place of the hearing.”
The court rejected DHS’s argument that oral notice given at a prior hearing satisfied the statute. Even assuming oral notice could suffice, the record showed the father was only told the date and time—not the location—when the future hearing was announced in December 2024. The written notation in the judgment similarly omitted the place. Because nothing in the record indicated the father was ever notified where the permanency hearing would be held, the statute’s requirement was not satisfied.
The court concluded the juvenile court erred in denying the continuance motion, proceeding with the hearing in the father’s absence, and changing the permanency plan. Because of this constitutional notice defect, the entire permanency judgment was vacated and the case was remanded for a new hearing with proper notice.
Key Takeaways
- Juvenile courts must provide notice that includes both the time AND place of permanency hearings; notice is deficient if either element is missing.
- Oral announcements at prior hearings do not satisfy the statutory notice requirement if they fail to communicate the hearing location.
- Parents have a fundamental right to participate in permanency hearings, and proceedings cannot go forward without proper notice ensuring they can appear.
- DHS’s failure to produce written notice or a transcript of the prior hearing left it unable to prove adequate notice was given.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces critical due process protections in juvenile dependency cases. Parents facing permanency changes that could result in adoption have a constitutional right to notice and an opportunity to be heard. Courts cannot rely on informal oral announcements or incomplete written notifications to satisfy statutory notice requirements, even when parents were present at prior proceedings. The ruling establishes that notice must be complete and unambiguous—state agencies cannot leave parents guessing about logistical details.
The decision has potential statewide impact for Oregon’s juvenile system. It signals that courts and DHS must be meticulous about notice procedures, including ensuring parents receive documentation specifying the exact location of hearings. Permanency decisions that affect parental rights and children’s futures require strict compliance with notice statutes, not substantial compliance or assumptions based on prior contact.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.