Ceaser v. Dept. of Human Services

Under ORS 183.310 to 183.690, “[r]eview of a contested case shall be confined to the record, and the court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to any issue of fact or agency discretion.”

Petitioners, child-care providers for low-income families, challenged the Department of Human Services (DHS) order suspending Petitioners from “receiving employment related day care (ERDC) subsidy payments” for a period of six months under OAR 461-165-0180(3)(d) because of Petitioners’ failure to comply with eligibility requirements. Petitioners raise four assignments of error: (1) DHS did not provide proper notice, (2) DHS did not provide a 60-day period for petitioner to “come into compliance,” (3) provisions under OAR 461-165-0180 are unconstitutionally vague and, (4) under plain error review, OAR 461-165-0180(8)(h)(B) exceeds DHS’s rule making authority. Under ORS 183.310 to 183.690, “[r]eview of a contested case shall be confined to the record, and the court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to any issue of fact or agency discretion.” The letter DHS sent stating that Petitioners failed to notify involvement with Child Protective Services (CPS) was sufficient notice. Petitioners cite no regulation, statute, or case law in support of their second assignment of error, DHS provided a specific date which they would stop payment to Petitioners which was sufficient. OAR 461-165-0180 is not unconstitutionally vague because it specifies rules of conduct, it seems clear that at least the director at a given site receiving a visit from CPS should report it to DHS. Petitioners final assignment of error is unpreserved. AFFIRMED.