Dept. of Human Services v. K. S. W.

Under the relevant ICWA provisions, “any party seeking to effect a foster care placement of an Indian child shall satisfy the court that ‘active efforts’ have been made to provide services to prevent the breakup of the Indian family, and that those efforts have failed.” 25 USC 1912(d). Under Dept. of Human Services v. J.G., the court explained that when a party seeking placement “has satisfied the court at a prior [permanency] hearing on the placement at issue that active efforts were made and failed . . . the court is not required to make the finding again at a later proceeding. Dept. of Human Services v. J.G., 260 Or App 500, 521, 317 P3d 936 (2014).

Father of two children, who are members of the Confederate Tribes of the Siletz Indians, appeals the juvenile court’s judgment establishing temporary guardianships over his two children under ORS 419B.366. On appeal, Father argued that the Department of Human Services (“DHS”) failed to show that it had made active efforts to prevent the breakup of the Indian family, as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act ("ICWA"). Under the relevant ICWA provisions, “any party seeking to effect a foster care placement of an Indian child shall satisfy the court that ‘active efforts’ have been made to provide services to prevent the breakup of the Indian family, and that those efforts have failed.” 25 USC 1912(d). Under Dept. of Human Services v. J.G., the court explained that when a party seeking placement “has satisfied the court at a prior [permanency] hearing on the placement at issue that active efforts were made and failed . . . the court is not required to make the finding again at a later proceeding. Dept. of Human Services v. J.G., 260 Or App 500, 521, 317 P3d 936 (2014). Agreeing with DHS, the Court found the juvenile court did not err in finding that DHS made “active efforts” to reunify the family at a prior permanency hearing and, therefore, the juvenile court’s decision was affirmed.