Dept. of Human Services v. J.M.T.M.

The party that proposes changing a permanency plan to adoption bears the burden of proving that there are no compelling reasons not to proceed with terminating the parent's parental rights. Dept. of Human Services v. S. J. M., 283 Or. App. 367, 392, 388 P.3d 417, 431, rev allowed, 361 Or. 350 (2017).

Mother and her three children appealed permanency judgments changing each child’s permanency plan from reunification to adoption. Mother assigned error to the juvenile court’s finding that there were no compelling reason not to proceed with terminating Mother’s parental rights under ORS 419B.476(f)(d) and ORS 419B.498(2). Mother argued that the evidence presented was insufficient to permit a finding that there was not “[a]nother permanent plan . . . better suited to meet the health and safety needs of the child, including the need to preserve the child’s sibling attachments and relationships.” ORS 419B.498(2)(b)(B). In response, the Department of Human Services (DHS) argued that “[t]there’s no guardian resource out there.” DHS did not present evidence proving adoption was the better plan for the children and had not identified any adoptive resources at the time of the hearing. “The party that proposes changing a permanency plan to adoption bears the burden of proving that there are no compelling reasons not to proceed with terminating the parent’s parental rights.” Dept. of Human Services v. S. J. M., 283 Or. App. 367, 392, 388 P.3d 417, 431, rev allowed, 361 Or. 350 (2017). The Court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the juvenile court’s finding that there were no compelling reasons not to proceed with terminating mother’s parental rights. Reversed and remanded.