Department of Human Services v. J.E.R.

“DHS’s efforts are evaluated over the entire duration of the case, with an emphasis on a period before the [permanency] hearing sufficient in length to afford a good opportunity to assess parental progress”, with the efforts to be analyzed on “the particular circumstances of each case” and “particularly the adjudicated bases for jurisdiction.” Dept. of Human Services v. S. M. H., 283 Or App 295 (2017). Dept. of Human Services v. S. S., 278 Or App 725 (2016).

Mother appealed three permanency judgments that changed the plan from reunification to adoption. Mother assigned error to the juvenile court's finding that DHS’ efforts were reasonable. On appeal, Mother argued that the finding of reasonable efforts was made prior to jurisdiction and before the court announced that Mother needed to ameliorate the basis for jurisdiction with services and that the court could not assess at that time whether efforts were reasonable because Mother was not required to engage in any services. In response, DHS argued that the efforts be based on the totality of circumstances, which included the pre-jurisdiction efforts. “DHS’s efforts are evaluated over the entire duration of the case, with an emphasis on a period before the [permanency] hearing sufficient in length to afford a good opportunity to assess parental progress”, with the efforts to be analyzed on “the particular circumstances of each case” and “particularly the adjudicated bases for jurisdiction.” Dept. of Human Services v. S. M. H., 283 Or App 295 (2017). Dept. of Human Services v. S. S., 278 Or App 725 (2016). The Court of Appeals held that based on the unusual length between jurisdiction and disposition and that the mother disputed that services were necessary with no proof on their requirement, the court erred in finding that efforts were reasonable. Reversed and remanded.