Dept. of Human Services v. H. M. I. F.

In assessing whether a permanency plan should be changed from reunification, “both DHS’s efforts and a parent’s progress are evaluated by reference to the facts that formed the bases for juvenile court jurisdiction.” Dept. of Human Services v. N. T., 247 Or App 706, 715, 271 P3d 143 (2012).

Father appealed from modification judgments of his children’s permanency plans from reunification to guardianship. On appeal, father challenged the juvenile court’s conclusion that DHS made reasonable efforts to reunify the family. Father argued that “DHS failed to provide [him] with services designed to ameliorate the asserted problem with disciplining the children.” Father also argued—for the first time on appeal—that “the asserted deficit in his parenting skills related to disciplining the children was not the basis for the court’s jurisdiction and therefore could not serve as the basis for changing the children’s permanency plans away from reunification.” DHS conceded that the juvenile court erred in that regard. In assessing whether a permanency plan should be changed from reunification, “both DHS’s efforts and a parent’s progress are evaluated by reference to the facts that formed the bases for juvenile court jurisdiction.” Dept. of Human Services v. N. T., 247 Or App 706, 715, 271 P3d 143 (2012). The Court agreed with the parties that these judgments must be reversed and exercised its discretion to do so. Reversed and remanded.