Dept. of Human Services v. R. J. B. ( 2023 )

413
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
Submitted June 8, 2023, affirmed August 9, petition for review denied
December 21, 2023 (371 Or 771)
In the Matter of S. R. B.,
fka S. A. O.-B., fka S. A. O.-B., a Child.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
R. J. B.
and A. K. B.,
Appellants.
Lane County Circuit Court
21JU03351; A180233 (Control)
In the Matter of R. M. B.,
fka M. D. E.-B., a Child.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
R. J. B.
and A. K. B.,
Appellants.
Lane County Circuit Court
21JU03352; A180234
In the Matter of M. A. B.,
fka A. B. E., a Child.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
R. J. B.
and A. K. B.,
Appellants.
Lane County Circuit Court
21JU03353; A180235
414 Dept. of Human Services v. R. J. B.
Bradley A. Cascagnette, Judge.
Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate
Section, and Holly Telerant, Deputy Public Defender, Office
of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant
A. K. B.
Kristen G. Williams filed the brief for appellant R. J. B.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Jeff J. Payne, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Powers, Judge, and
Hellman, Judge.
ORTEGA, P. J.
Affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 327 Or App 413 (2023) 415
ORTEGA, P. J.
In these consolidated juvenile dependency cases,
father and mother appeal the juvenile court judgments
changing their three children’s permanency plans from
reunification to adoption. Father and mother each assign
error to the juvenile court’s rulings determining that the
Department of Human Services (DHS) made reasonable
efforts to reunify the family and to the respective rulings
that each parent made insufficient progress toward reuni-
fication. See ORS 419B.476(2)(a) (to change a plan of reuni-
fication, the juvenile court must determine that DHS has
made reasonable efforts and that the parent has not made
sufficient progress to make it possible for the ward to safely
return home). We affirm.
We “view the evidence, as supplemented and but-
tressed by permissible derivative inferences, in the light
most favorable to the juvenile court’s disposition and assess
whether, when so viewed, the record was legally sufficient to
permit the juvenile court’s change to the permanency plan.”
Dept. of Human Services v. S. M. H., 283 Or App 295, 297,
388 P3d 1204 (2017) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We conclude that the record is legally sufficient to permit
the juvenile court to determine that DHS made reasonable
efforts to reunify the family and to determine that each par-
ent made insufficient progress in ameliorating the jurisdic-
tional basis, viz., that the parent subjected the children to
excessive physical discipline that caused emotional harm.
Reasonable Efforts. There is evidence in the record
to support the juvenile court’s finding that parents’ abrupt
and voluntary move out of state, shortly after DHS inter-
vened, complicated the efforts to reunify the family and that
parents’ failure to fully disclose to treatment providers the
nature and extent of the jurisdictional bases further ham-
pered DHS’s efforts. Despite those added layers of difficulty,
DHS provided anger management counseling, psychologi-
cal evaluations, parent training, mental health evaluations
and treatment, individual counseling, and supervised visits
with the children. The record supports a determination that,
under the totality of the circumstances, DHS gave each par-
ent “a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate their ability to
416 Dept. of Human Services v. R. J. B.
adjust their conduct and become a minimally adequate par-
ent.” Dept. of Human Services v. R. C., 320 Or App 762, 769,
514 P3d 538, rev den, 370 Or 404 (2022) (internal quotation
marks and brackets omitted).
Insufficient Progress. The record supports the juve-
nile court’s determination that the circumstances and con-
ditions that form the bases of jurisdiction have not been
ameliorated because father and mother still lack insight
into the traumatic impact of the excessive discipline they
administered and supported. See Dept. of Human Services
v. G. N., 263 Or App 287, 297, 328 P3d 728, rev den, 356
Or 638 (2014) (“Even if a parent has completed all services
that have been required, evidence that a parent continues
to engage in behavior that is harmful to a child supports a
determination that the parent has not made sufficient prog-
ress to make it possible for the child to return home.”).
As to father, there is evidence in the record to sup-
port the juvenile court’s findings that father did not partici-
pate in an evaluation by a DHS-approved evaluator, and that
the evaluator father sought on his own noted that father’s
responses indicated that he is reluctant to admit limitations
or distress, which often leads to unawareness or minimi-
zation of problems. Father’s evaluator also stated that it
was difficult to assess the full extent of father’s situation
and the impact of his behaviors due to conflicting informa-
tion between DHS records and father’s self-report. Further,
father told providers that the children were removed because
of “parenting differences” and because corporal punishment
is frowned upon in Oregon.
As to mother, there is evidence in the record to sup-
port the juvenile court’s findings that mother participated
in a DHS-approved evaluation in which she expressed very
little distress regarding the impact of her and father’s par-
enting of the children and similarly responded in a man-
ner indicating a reluctance to admit limitations or distress.
Although mother testified to some of the tools that she
learned to parent children with traumatic backgrounds, she
never acknowledged to her therapist the excessive manner
in which father disciplined the children despite acknowledg-
ing that his current practices are “way less severe.”
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 327 Or App 413 (2023) 417
Accordingly, the record was legally sufficient to per-
mit the juvenile court’s change to the permanency plan.
Affirmed.