Dept. of Human Services v. N. C. N./N. H. , 316 Or. App. 463 ( 2021 )

463
Submitted September 13, affirmed December 15, 2021, petition for review
denied April 21, 2022 (369 Or 675)
In the Matter of A. R. M. H.,
a Child.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
N. C. N.
and N. H.,
Appellants.
Jackson County Circuit Court
17JU10140, 19JU07605;
A175285 (Control), A175286
In the Matter of C. F. H.,
a Child.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
N. H.,
Appellant.
Jackson County Circuit Court
20JU01052; A175288
501 P3d 90
Benjamin M. Bloom, Judge.
Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate
Section, and Sean Connor, Deputy Public Defender, Office
of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant N. H.
G. Aron Perez-Selsky and Michael J. Wallace filed the
brief for appellant N. C. N.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and E. Nani Apo, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and
Powers, Judge.
464 Dept. of Human Services v. N. C. N./N. H.
PER CURIAM
Affirmed.
Cite as 316 Or App 463 (2021) 465
PER CURIAM
Mother appeals a juvenile court judgment chang-
ing the permanency plan as to her two children, A and C,
from reunification to adoption. Father likewise appeals the
change in plan as to his child with mother, A. Although
mother raises several assignments of error, the substance
of her challenge is to the finding that DHS made reasonable
efforts toward returning the children to her care.1 Father
likewise challenges the juvenile court’s finding that DHS’s
efforts as to him were reasonable.
Neither party has requested de novo review, and
such review is not warranted in this case. Rather, we review
whether the evidence, as supplemented and buttressed by
permissible derivative inferences and considered in the light
most favorable to the juvenile court’s disposition, was suf-
ficient to support the juvenile court’s conclusions. Dept. of
Human Services v. M. K., 285 Or App 448, 450, 396 P3d 294,
rev den, 361 Or 885 (2017).
Although a detailed discussion would not benefit
the bench and bar, we are satisfied that the record supports
the juvenile court’s conclusion that DHS made reasonable
efforts as to both parents.
Affirmed.
1
In her third and fourth assignments of error, mother challenges the juve-
nile court’s finding that she had not made sufficient progress for the children
to be returned to her care; however, DHS argues that she did not preserve that
challenge below and, in all events, she does not offer any substance to that argu-
ment beyond her challenge to the reasonable efforts finding. Her challenge to
the change in plan in her fifth and sixth assignments of error likewise does not
consist of any additional argument. Accordingly, we focus on mother’s challenge
to the reasonable efforts finding.