Dept. of Human Services v. A. M. W. ( 2024 )

No. 498 July 17, 2024 807
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
STATE OF OREGON
In the Matter of K. G. B.,
a Child.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
A. M. W.,
Appellant.
Yamhill County Circuit Court
22JU02975; A183295 (Control)
In the Matter of C. W.,
a Child.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
A. M. W.,
Appellant.
Yamhill County Circuit Court
22JU02976; A183296
In the Matter of K. D. H.,
a Child.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
A. M. W.,
Appellant.
Yamhill County Circuit Court
22JU02977; A183297
In the Matter of B. A. H.,
a Child.
808 Dept. of Human Services v. A. M. W.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
A. M. W.,
Appellant.
Yamhill County Circuit Court
22JU02978; A183298
Cynthia L. Easterday, Judge.
Submitted June 3, 2024.
George W. Kelly filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Inge D. Wells, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Egan, Judge, and Kamins,
Judge.
EGAN, J.
Affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 333 Or App 807 (2024) 809
EGAN, J.
Mother appeals from a juvenile court judgment
changing the permanency plan for her children from reuni-
fication to adoption, asserting that the trial court erred in
ruling that the Department of Human Services (DHS) made
reasonable efforts towards reunification. We affirm.
Mother has not asked us to exercise our discretion
to review this case de novo, nor is it an exceptional case war-
ranting de novo review. See ORS 19.415(3)(b) (providing this
court with discretion to conduct de novo review in equita-
ble cases); ORAP 5.40(8)(c) (de novo review is appropriate
only in exceptional cases). We are “bound by the juvenile
court’s factual findings as to what efforts DHS has made,
so long as there is any evidence in the record to support
them.” Dept. of Human Services v. J. D. R., 312 Or App 510,
512, 493 P3d 567 (2021). Thus, we view the evidence, as sup-
plemented and buttressed by permissible inferences, in the
light most favorable to the juvenile court’s disposition and
assess whether the record is legally sufficient to permit the
outcome. Dept. of Human Services v. N. P., 257 Or App 633,
639, 307 P3d 444 (2013). The juvenile court’s determination
that DHS’s efforts were reasonable constitutes a legal con-
clusion that we review for errors of law. J. D. R., 312 Or App
at 512.
Given the standard of review, we state the follow-
ing relevant facts and procedural history: Jurisdiction was
taken over four of mother’s seven children in the fall of 2022.
As to three of the children, jurisdiction was based on mother’s
admission that “[m]other’s mental health interferes with her
ability to safely parent this child.” As to the fourth and old-
est child, mother admitted that “[m]other’s mental health
interferes with her ability to safely parent this child and
mother requires the assistance of the agency to understand
and care for the child’s special needs and without assistance
mother cannot safely parent this child.” Mother has partici-
pated in two psychological evaluations in 2019 and in 2022.1
1
The 2019 evaluation was related to a Crook County case in which jurisdic-
tion was taken over mother’s children based on mother’s mental health problems
and inability to protect the children from father’s mental health problems. That
Crook County case was dismissed in 2021.
810 Dept. of Human Services v. A. M. W.
Both evaluations recommended dialectical behavior therapy
(DBT) for mother as well as individual counseling to treat
mother’s anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
DHS referred mother to the Portland DBT Institute
in September 2022, but due to a lengthy waitlist, DHS rec-
ommended that mother participate in the Institute’s “skills-
only” DBT program while she waited for an opening in the
“full fidelity” program. Mother did not continue to partici-
pate in the “skills-only” DBT program and did not consis-
tently participate in mental health treatment for her PTSD
and anxiety. In August of 2023, mother began a 14-week
DBT group therapy program with another provider, but that
provider terminated mother from the program in October
2023 after learning that mother had misrepresented her cir-
cumstances in the intake evaluation.
During the permanency hearing, the trial court
made credibility determinations; in particular, the court
determined that mother’s testimony was “inconsistent,
incomplete, defensive and evasive.” The court further elab-
orated that mother “self-sabotages herself by failing to be
open and honest with her providers, and failing to follow
through with mental health recommendations, engage con-
sistently with counselors, and follow through and partici-
pate in resources that are made available for her and her
children.”
When a child is subject to juvenile court jurisdic-
tion, the court must make certain determinations at each
permanency hearing, including whether DHS has made
reasonable efforts to reunify the child with the parents
J. D. R., 312 Or App at 517. DHS bears the burden and must
demonstrate that its efforts were reasonable by a preponder-
ance of the evidence. Id. “Reasonable efforts for purposes of
ORS 419B.476(2)(a) are efforts that focus on ameliorating
the adjudicated bases for jurisdiction, and that give parents
a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate their ability to
adjust their conduct and become minimally adequate par-
ents.” Dept. of Human Services v. V. A. R., 301 Or App 565,
567, 456 P3d 681 (2019) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The reasonableness of DHS’s efforts depends on the par-
ticular circumstances of the case. Id. “The jurisdictional
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 333 Or App 807 (2024) 811
language provides the lenses through which the reason-
ableness of DHS’s efforts is analyzed. For those reasons, the
wording of the jurisdictional basis set forth in the judgment
matters.” J. D. R., 312 Or App at 518 (emphasis in original).
When DHS fails to provide or offer a particular service to a
parent, we review the adequacy of DHS’s efforts in light of
the potential benefits that providing that service could have
yielded. Id.We reject mother’s contention that DHS efforts were
unreasonable. After DHS referred mother to the Portland
DBT Institute and the DBT clinic, mother did not engage
with the providers to participate in the available “skills-only”
DBT program while she was on the waitlist for the “full-
fidelity” DBT program. Then, after mother began a 14-week
DBT group therapy program, mother was terminated due to
her misrepresentations during the intake evaluation. There
is evidence that mother has failed to take prescribed med-
ications since 2019 to manage her mental health, has not
consistently engaged in therapy with a single provider, and
testified that she was not interested in managing her men-
tal health with medications despite the recommendation in
her 2022 psychological evaluation. DHS gave mother a “rea-
sonable opportunity to demonstrate” her ability to adjust
her conduct and become a minimally adequate parent, but
mother consistently failed to engage with the recommended
services, failed to maintain consistent treatment, and
caused her own termination from the 14-week DBT group
therapy program. See V. A. R., 301 Or App at 567 (noting
that the reasonableness of DHS’s efforts depends on the par-
ticular circumstances of the case).
We conclude that the juvenile court did not err in
ruling that DHS made reasonable efforts towards reuni-
fication. We further conclude, based on our review of the
record, that the juvenile court did not err in changing the
permanency plan for mother’s children from reunification to
adoption.
Affirmed.