Background
In this consolidated juvenile dependency case, a mother appealed judgments changing the permanency plans for her children, C and R, who were nine and 11 at the time of the permanency hearing, from reunification to adoption. The juvenile court found that the children felt safe in their placement with a relative resource parent and needed stability and consistency.
The mother challenged the determination that her progress toward reunification was insufficient and the resulting change in permanency plans. She did not challenge the juvenile court’s findings that the Oregon Department of Human Services made reasonable reunification efforts or that no compelling reason existed to conclude adoption was not in either child’s best interests.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed. Because the mother did not request de novo review, the court treated supported historical findings as binding and reviewed the juvenile court’s insufficient-progress determination for legal error. The controlling question was whether the mother’s progress made the children’s safe return home possible, with or without continued services and support.
Although providers testified that the mother was making steady progress toward sobriety and stability, the record showed that she had long struggled to maintain consistent sobriety. Between the juvenile court’s assumption of jurisdiction in October 2024 and the beginning of the permanency hearing in December 2025, she tested positive for controlled substances at least eight times and missed several other urinalyses. The court held that those relapses supported the finding that her ability to remain sober and safely parent was still uncertain and that the children could not safely return to her within a time reasonable for them.
Key Takeaways
- A parent need not completely remedy every basis for dependency jurisdiction, but progress is sufficient only when it makes the child’s safe return home possible, with or without continued support.
- Participation in services and signs of improvement do not require a finding of sufficient progress when the parent continues conduct that creates a safety risk.
- Changing a permanency plan to adoption does not itself terminate parental rights; it moves the case away from reunification toward adoption as the permanency objective.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that Oregon courts assess parental progress by its practical effect on the possibility of a safe return, not merely by service participation or short-term improvement. Repeated relapses and missed drug tests can support a finding of insufficient progress when sustained sobriety remains necessary for safe parenting.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as that rule permits.