Dept. of Human Services v. A. B. ( 2022 )

523
Submitted March 11, affirmed May 11, 2022
In the Matter of A. D. H.,
a Child.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
A. B.,
Appellant.
Douglas County Circuit Court
21JU02456; A177131
510 P3d 288
Jason R. Thomas, Judge.
Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate
Section, and Sean Connor, Deputy Public Defender, Office of
Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Kirsten M. Naito, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Powers, Judge, and
Hellman, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Affirmed.
524 Dept. of Human Services v. A. B.
PER CURIAM
Mother appeals from a disposition judgment after
the juvenile court asserted jurisdiction over her infant
daughter. She contends that the Department of Human
Services (DHS) failed to make active efforts to reunify her
with her daughter, primarily because it failed to approve an
in-home plan with father’s sister.1
Because mother’s daughter is an Indian child, the
juvenile court was required to determine if DHS had made
“active efforts” to reunite her with mother, ORS 419B.340(1).
Under ORS 419B.645, “active efforts” are efforts that are
“affirmative, active, thorough, timely and intended to main-
tain or reunite an Indian child with the Indian child’s
family.”
Having reviewed the record for any evidence in sup-
port of the juvenile court’s findings of fact and its conclu-
sions of law for legal error, Dept. of Human Services v. R. W.,
277 Or App 37, 39, 370 P3d 543 (2016), we conclude that the
juvenile court did not err. The department made extensive
efforts toward reunification, most of which were rejected
by mother, including a proposed in-home placement with
another relative. Its rejection of mother’s preferred place-
ment with a different relative does not support a conclusion
that those efforts were not active.
Affirmed.
1
Father is not a party to this appeal.