Background
The family had a long history of involvement with the Oregon Department of Human Services dating to 2007. In 2015, four children were removed due to neglect related to parental substance abuse. S, the subject of this appeal, was returned to parents in 2016. In March 2022, ODHS implemented a protection plan after discovering methamphetamine use, mother’s “unpredictable and erratic behavior,” and school truancy. S moved in with her adult sister in July 2023 but was removed in April 2024 when the sister failed to ensure her school attendance.
In February 2024, mother stabbed father during a domestic dispute in the presence of another child, leading to her arrest and prosecution. ODHS removed three younger children in March 2024. The parents admitted all jurisdictional allegations: mother’s domestic violence assault charges, children’s exposure to domestic violence, inadequate parenting skills, residential instability, father’s failure to provide education, and father’s substance abuse. S joined her three younger siblings (H, L, and N) in a kith (non-relative) foster placement with experienced caregivers who had previously cared for the family’s older children in 2015.
Between November 2024 and August 2025, mother completed residential substance abuse treatment and domestic violence services, engaged with a parent mentor and parenting training, and achieved a trial reunification with her youngest daughter (H). However, concerns arose: father was present at visits despite a no-contact order and provided marijuana to children; mother appeared intoxicated on video calls; and S consistently declined visits, telling CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocate) she did not wish to return to mother’s care. S, now 13, had developed strong bonds with her resource family, improved from a 2.8 GPA after years of school truancy, and was receiving therapy and comprehensive care. H, L, and N’s plan remained reunification with all parties’ agreement. Only S sought a guardianship plan.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s determination that ODHS made reasonable reunification efforts with mother and that both parents failed to make sufficient progress. The court rejected mother’s argument that ODHS was obligated to conduct a psychological evaluation or follow all recommendations from the domestic violence counselor. Because mother’s mental health was not a basis for jurisdiction, and ODHS had provided services addressing each admitted jurisdictional basis—substance abuse treatment, domestic violence services, parenting training, and housing assistance—the agency’s efforts satisfied the reasonableness standard. The court found that mother had engaged with services but had not demonstrated sufficient change in her perceptions or ability to separate from father, despite his no-contact order. Father showed minimal engagement with any offered services.
The court also affirmed the change of permanency plan from reunification to guardianship for S specifically. Rejecting father’s argument that the court improperly relied on S’s preferences and circumstances (which he claimed were “extrinsic” to the jurisdictional judgment), the Court of Appeals held that Oregon law and federal law require a “child-centered” approach when determining permanency plans. The court was entitled to consider S’s particular circumstances—including her 17+ months in stable placement, strong bonds with her resource family, thriving academic and mental health status, and persistent preference for guardianship—when determining that guardianship (rather than continued reunification or adoption) best served her interests while preserving her sibling relationships.
Key Takeaways
- Reunification efforts are reasonable when they address the specific jurisdictional bases established at the dependency hearing, even if they do not include every conceivable service or recommendation a service provider suggests.
- A child’s age, circumstances, and preferences regarding permanency planning must be considered under Oregon law and federal CIPA requirements, and courts may change permanency plans based on a child-centered analysis.
- Different permanency plans may be appropriate for siblings in the same case based on each child’s unique circumstances, placement stability, and expressed wishes.
- A child in stable, thriving substitute care who has consistently expressed a preference against reunification provides sufficient grounds to change the permanency plan away from reunification, even when other siblings’ plans remain unchanged.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies that ODHS’s reunification obligations are tied to the specific findings that justify state intervention, not to a potentially unlimited menu of services. Agencies need not pursue every possible therapeutic recommendation to satisfy the reasonableness standard. However, the decision equally reinforces that children’s voices matter in permanency decisions. At 13 years old with 17 months in a stable, supportive placement where she was thriving academically and emotionally, S’s consistent, articulate preference against reunification—combined with objective evidence of her wellbeing—justified a guardianship plan despite parent-preferred reunification.
The ruling has particular significance for practitioners and judges: it permits nuanced, individualized permanency planning within a single family, recognizes adolescents’ capacity for self-advocacy in dependency proceedings, and confirms that “reasonable efforts” does not require an exhaustive or unlimited array of services. It also reinforces that permanency determinations must be grounded in the child’s current circumstances and needs, not merely in efforts to reunify or in abstract parental preferences, even when other family members remain on reunification tracks.