Dept. of Human Services v. A. M. M. ( 2023 )

129
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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 April 20, affirmed May 17, 2023
In the Matter of H. M,
a Child.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
A. M. M.,
Appellant.
Multnomah County Circuit Court
19JU05628;
Petition Number 113756;
A179657
Patrick W. Henry, Judge.
Kristen G. Williams filed the briefs for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Shannon T. Reel, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, and Joyce, Judge, and
Jacquot, Judge.
JOYCE, J.
Affirmed.
130 Dept. of Human Services v. A. M. M.
JOYCE, J.
Mother appeals from a judgment changing the per-
manency plan for her child, H, from reunification to adop-
tion. She assigns error to the juvenile court’s rulings that
(1) DHS made reasonable efforts to effect reunification;
(2) mother’s progress was insufficient to make reunification
possible; (3) no compelling reason prevented a change in
plan; and (4) the plan should be changed away from reunifi-
cation to adoption. “We review the juvenile court’s legal con-
clusions for errors of law, and we view the evidence in the
light most favorable to the court’s disposition to determine
if it supports the court’s legal conclusions.” Dept. of Human
Services v. S. J. M., 364 Or 37, 40, 430 P3d 1021 (2018). We
affirm.
Reasonable Efforts. Mother contends that the
juvenile court erred in concluding that DHS made rea-
sonable efforts to allow H to return to her care. See ORS
419B.476(2)(a) (so requiring). We disagree. DHS removed
H from mother’s care shortly after H’s birth in 2019 after
H tested positive for controlled substances and established
jurisdiction over H because mother’s “cognitive function-
ing requires her to engage in services to learn and apply
appropriate parenting skills to safely parent” H. In the
nearly three years that followed, DHS offered mother,
among other things, referral for substance abuse services,
referrals for hands-on parenting classes in an attempt to
accommodate and adapt to mother’s cognitive limitations
and style of learning,1 personal service workers, refer-
rals for housing, a psychological evaluation, family deci-
sion meetings, and visitation with H. Particularly given
the length and breadth of services offered, that evidence
is legally sufficient to support the juvenile court’s deter-
mination that DHS’s efforts were “reasonable” under ORS
419B.476(2)(a).
1
ORS 419B.090(5) requires DHS to offer parents with disabilities “oppor-
tunities to benefit from or participate in reunification services that are equal
to those extended to individuals without disabilities.” It further requires DHS
to “provide aids, benefits and services different from those provided to parents
and guardians without disabilities, when necessary to ensure that parents and
guardians with disabilities are provided with an equal opportunity under this
subsection.”
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 326 Or App 129 (2023) 131
Insufficient Progress. Mother argues that the juve-
nile court erred in ruling that mother made insufficient prog-
ress to ameliorate the jurisdictional basis. Dept. of Human
Services v. S. M. H., 283 Or App 295, 305, 388 P3d 1204
(2017) (change of plan away from reunification is permissi-
ble only if, despite DHS’s reasonable efforts, “the parent’s
progress was insufficient to make reunification possible”).
We disagree. The juvenile court found that due to her cog-
nitive limitations, mother does not have the ability to safely
parent H without support, yet mother has had inconsistent
contact with DHS for significant periods of time and has not
demonstrated a willingness to accept that support. It fur-
ther found that mother has a pattern of residential instabil-
ity as well as engaging with people who do not “improve her
ability to safely parent” H. We conclude that the evidence
supports the juvenile court’s findings and is legally suffi-
cient to support the court’s determination that mother had
not made progress sufficient to enable reunification.
Compelling Reasons. Mother argues that the juve-
nile court erred in changing H’s permanency plan to adop-
tion because mother established a compelling reason to
forgo implementing a plan of adoption. ORS 419B.498(2).
DHS argues that mother did not preserve the error and hav-
ing reviewed the record, we agree. We therefore decline to
address this claim of error.
Change of Permanency Plan. Lastly, mother assigns
error to the juvenile court’s change of plan from reunifi-
cation to adoption. Because the juvenile court’s decision
turned on its determinations that DHS made reasonable
efforts and that, despite those efforts, mother’s progress was
insufficient—and because we affirm both those determina-
tions here—we reject that argument.
Affirmed.