Dept. of Human Services v. H. K. ( 2022 )

733
Argued and submitted July 7; on respondent’s motion to dismiss filed June 7,
and appellant’s response to respondent’s motion to dismiss filed June 16, motion
to dismiss denied; “Supplemental Findings Re Reasonable Efforts” order
reversed and remanded, order requiring mother to submit to psychological
evaluation vacated and remanded, otherwise affirmed September 14, 2022
In the Matter of O. K.,
a Child.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
H. K.,
Appellant.
Wallowa County Circuit Court
19JU09318; A177559 (Control), A177567
517 P3d 1044
In the context of a permanency judgment involving her child, J, mother
challenges the juvenile court’s reasonable efforts determination and its order
requiring her to undergo a psychological evaluation. Held: (1) The court erred
in concluding that the Department of Human Services’ efforts were reasonable
where mother and J had had only one in-person family therapy session, facili-
tated by J’s therapist, in the 14 months since J entered substitute care, despite
the recommendations of the mental health professionals involved that therapeu-
tic visitation/family therapy with a neutral provider was key to the possibility of
reunification, and the juvenile court had, six months prior to the conclusion of
the permanency hearing, ordered that in-person therapeutic visitations begin as
soon as possible. (2) Mother’s challenge to the psychological-evaluation order was
not moot. On the merits, the juvenile court erred in ordering mother to undergo
a psychological evaluation without making the factual findings required by Dept.
of Human Services v. W. C. T., 314 Or App 743, 776, 501 P3d 44 (2021).
Motion to dismiss denied. “Supplemental Findings Re Reasonable Efforts”
order reversed and remanded; order requiring mother to submit to a psychologi-
cal evaluation vacated and remanded; otherwise affirmed.
Thomas B. Powers, Judge.
Holly Telerant, Deputy Public Defender, argued the
cause for appellant. Also on the briefs was Shannon Storey,
Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, Office of Public
Defense Services.
Jon Zunkel-deCoursey, Assistant Attorney General, argued
the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F.
734 Dept. of Human Services v. H. K.
Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General.
Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, and Mooney, Judge, and
Pagán, Judge.
SHORR, P. J.
Motion to dismiss denied. “Supplemental Findings Re
Reasonable Efforts” order reversed and remanded; order
requiring mother to submit to psychological evaluation
vacated and remanded; otherwise affirmed.
Cite as 321 Or App 733 (2022) 735
SHORR, P. J.
In these consolidated dependency appeals, mother
challenges two juvenile court orders arising out of a per-
manency hearing involving her child, J:1 (1) an order of
“Supplemental Findings Re Reasonable Efforts”2 and (2) an
order requiring mother to undergo a psychological evalu-
ation. As explained below, we agree with mother that the
juvenile court erred in determining that the Department
of Human Services (DHS) made reasonable efforts toward
reunifying J with mother. We therefore reverse the supple-
mental order and remand for the court to enter a new per-
manency judgment specifying that DHS did not make rea-
sonable efforts. See Dept. of Human Services v. J. F. D., 255
Or App 742, 750 n 4, 298 P3d 653 (2013) (where parties did
not dispute permanency disposition, new judgment specify-
ing that DHS did not make reasonable efforts was necessary
on remand “because changing the reasonable efforts con-
clusion has collateral consequences regardless of whether
the approved plan is changed”).3 As to mother’s challenge to
the psychological-evaluation order, we reject DHS’s conten-
tion that the appeal is moot, and we vacate and remand the
order in light of Dept. of Human Services v. W. C. T., 314 Or
App 743, 501 P3d 44 (2021).
I. ORDER FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL
EVALUATION
In somewhat unconventional fashion, we begin by
first disposing of mother’s challenge to the juvenile court’s
order requiring her to submit to a psychological evaluation,
1
J uses the personal pronouns he/him or they/them. Accordingly, we will use
they/them in this opinion.
2
Mother moved for summary determination of appealability of this order
under ORS 19.235(3). The Appellate Commissioner concluded that the order sup-
plemented the court’s permanency judgment and, thus, in light of Dept. of Human
Services v. J. D. R., 312 Or App 510, 493 P3d 567 (2021), and Dept. of Human
Services v. R. O., 315 Or App 487, 497 P3d 329 (2021), rev dismissed, 369 Or 508(2022), was appealable under ORS 419A.405(1)(d).
3
We view the supplemental order as part and parcel of the permanency judg-
ment; as noted below, the juvenile court expressly provided in the permanency
judgment that the judgment would be supplemented by the court’s findings in
support of its reasonable-efforts determination. The parties do not challenge
other aspects of the permanency judgment, including the disposition; accord-
ingly, we otherwise affirm that judgment.
736 Dept. of Human Services v. H. K.
which she presents as her second assignment of error in
this appeal. Briefly, prior to the commencement of the per-
manency hearing that gave rise to the appeal, DHS filed a
motion requesting the court to order a psychological evalu-
ation of mother, arguing that it was authorized under both
ORS 419B.337(2) and ORS 419B.387. Mother filed a writ-
ten objection to DHS’s motion and also argued against it at
the permanency hearing. The court rejected mother’s argu-
ments and, on November 16, 2021, entered an order requir-
ing the psychological evaluation and providing that the com-
pleted evaluation “shall be disclosed to the court and the
parties for use in the judicial proceedings.” On January 8,
2022—while this appeal was pending—mother notified the
juvenile court that, although she “respectfully disagree[d]
with the Court’s order,” she would submit to the evaluation
to move the case along and to “demonstrate [her] willing-
ness to cooperate with DHS towards reunification.” She
subsequently completed the evaluation and shared it with
DHS.
DHS then moved to dismiss mother’s appeal as moot,
arguing that it no longer has a practical effect on mother’s
rights. Mother responds that her challenge to the order is
not moot because a decision in her favor could provide a
basis for limiting or excluding the use of the evaluation as
evidence against her in the ongoing dependency proceedings
or a future termination of parental rights proceeding. We
agree with mother that her appeal of the order is not moot.
See Dept. of Human Services v. T. L. H., 300 Or App 606, 613,
453 P3d 556 (2019) (concluding that appeal was not moot in
similar circumstances). Mother’s letter to the court did not,
as DHS contends, waive any challenge to the subsequent
use of the evaluation in future proceedings. W. C. T., a case
in which the mother had already waived DHS’s release of
her records and had not developed any further argument as
to what underlying information was still at issue, is inappo-
site in that respect. 314 Or App at 779.
As to the merits of mother’s challenge to the
psychological-evaluation order, DHS concedes the error,
acknowledging that the juvenile court did not make the
factual findings required under the four-part standard
Cite as 321 Or App 733 (2022) 737
articulated in W. C. T., 314 Or App at 776.4 We agree and
accept DHS’s concession; accordingly, we vacate and remand
the psychological-evaluation order. See, e.g., Dept. of Human
Services v. B. F., 318 Or App 536, 540, 507 P3d 350 (2022)
(vacating and remanding portion of judgment requiring the
father to submit to a psychological exam); Dept. of Human
Services v. M. D., 316 Or App 820, 823, 503 P3d 1275 (2022)
(vacating and remanding for application of W. C. T. standard
where court had failed to make three necessary findings
derived from ORS 419B.387).
II. REASONABLE EFFORTS DETERMINATION
We turn to our review of the juvenile court’s rea-
sonable efforts determination, starting with our standard of
review.
A. Standard of Review
In the absence of de novo review, which is neither
requested nor warranted in this case,
“[w]e 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. F. D., 255 Or App 742, 744, 298 P3d 653 (2013).
Whether those efforts constitute ‘reasonable efforts’ for
purposes of ORS 419B.476(2)(a) is a question of law that we
review for legal error. Dept. of Human Services v. V. A. R.,
301 Or App 565, 567, 456 P3d 681 (2019).”
Dept. of Human Services v. K. G. T., 306 Or App 368, 370, 473
P3d 131 (2020).
B. Facts
DHS first became involved with this family in
December 2019, when J, who was then 12 years old, was
hospitalized for suicidal concerns. J had locked themself in
a bathroom in the family home with a butcher knife and was
proceeding to cut or had cut themself. At the hospital, J told
hospital staff that they would harm themself if returned
to mother’s care. Mother indicated that she did not want J
to be treated with anything but homeopathic medications.
4
W. C. T. was decided after the permanency hearing that gave rise to this
appeal.
738 Dept. of Human Services v. H. K.
Mother also initially did not want J admitted to a psychi-
atric hospital, as J’s medical providers recommended. DHS
sought protective custody to ensure that J would receive
mental health services.
At the original shelter hearing, father was given
temporary custody of J and DHS was dismissed. After
learning that father was not able or willing to ensure that J
received the mental health services that they needed,5 DHS
filed an amended dependency petition on January 30, 2020,
and J was placed in substitute care at that time.
The juvenile court took dependency jurisdiction over
J in early April 2020. As to mother, jurisdiction was based
on her admissions that (1) “[J] has emotional and mental
health needs that require treatment that the mother has
failed to provide” and (2) “the mother’s mental health prob-
lems interfere with her ability to safely parent the child.”6
Reunification with a parent was identified as the perma-
nency plan for J.
J has been in a variety of placements over the
course of this case. Between January and June 2020, they
were placed in nonrelative foster care in Enterprise, they
then moved to a psychiatric care facility at Trillium Family
Services, where they spent a week before being returned to
the foster care placement in Enterprise, followed by a brief
placement with their maternal grandmother, and a nonrel-
ative foster care placement in Baker City.
In May 2020, Dr. Dudley completed a psychological
examination of J and diagnosed them with major depres-
sive disorder, recurrent, of moderate to severe level; an
unspecified anxiety disorder; and post-traumatic stress
disorder. Dudley also indicated that J “was developing a
characterological structure with quite maladaptive style
of interpreting and responding to stress and interpersonal
interactions including self-harm behaviors and heightened
5
J also alleged that father had pushed them down the stairs.
6
Jurisdiction as to father was based on his admissions that “[J] has emotional
and mental health needs that the [f]ather has been unable or cannot provide”;
“the [f]ather is not a custodial resource”; and “[J] is alleging [f]ather has caused
[J] physical injury and if returned to his care, [J] would be suicidal.” Father did
not appear at the permanency hearing and is not a party to this appeal.
Cite as 321 Or App 733 (2022) 739
risk of suicide.” Dudley reported that, rather than a hos-
pital or foster family setting, J needed “a more structured
therapeutic setting where there is higher supervision and
a program of therapeutic services for [J]” and opined that J
would “likely benefit from ongoing psychiatric consultation,
individual counseling, and in the residential setting, group
counseling.”
At that time, J was receiving individual men-
tal health therapy from Cudmore, a therapist at Wallowa
Valley Center for Wellness in Enterprise. Cudmore recom-
mended that J work on their coping skills and emotional
regulation before any contact with their parents because
of the “extreme triggering” such contact caused. In late
May, Cudmore recommended limited phone contact with
mother.
In June 2020, J was moved to therapeutic foster
care near Roseburg in Douglas County, about an eight-hour
drive from Wallowa County where mother lives. J report-
edly transitioned well to this foster home, and they reported
being happy there. After about six weeks, however, J began
self-harming, including five or six incidents of them cutting
themself on their arms and legs. J received minor first aid
and was seen by a doctor, as needed, for those incidents.
Murray, J’s therapeutic foster mother, who had special-
ized training through Greater Oregon Behavioral Health
Incorporated (GOBHI), testified that some of J’s self-harm
incidents happened in close proximity to the family ther-
apy sessions (discussed below) or other contact with mother.
They were also sometimes correlated with bullying at school
or other things. According to Murray, J expressed that they
love mother and want to have a relationship with her but not
to live with her.
J was assigned an individual therapist in Douglas
County but, after a few sessions, they requested a differ-
ent one. In late June or early July, J began weekly one-on-
one therapy sessions with Brent, a mental health therapist
whose location was at the middle school J attended. Those
45-minute sessions continued until J left the foster care
placement in February 2021. Brent testified that interac-
tion with mother was a huge trigger for J’s emotions and
740 Dept. of Human Services v. H. K.
trauma. Another trigger for J was trauma related to past
sexual abuse allegations against their step-grandfather.7
Brent reported that J was looking for “more acceptance of
[their] transgender situation” and the situation with their
step-grandfather. According to Brent, J made a lot of prog-
ress in therapy “until the situation with their mom coming
back into the picture.”
J also received WRAP services,8 beginning in
Wallowa County and transitioning to Douglas County when
they moved there, and skills training through GOBHI while
in foster care in Douglas County. In addition, J received
medical services for a heart condition and other physical
health conditions.
Meanwhile, mother voluntarily began individual
mental health therapy with Lembke in June 2020. Those
sessions were held weekly, with the exception of a couple of
months when mother was engaged in family therapy (dis-
cussed below). According to Lembke, mother was working on
emotional regulation and gaining acceptance of the fact of
J’s removal as well as accepting J for who they are. Lembke
recommended “a skilled family therapist to deal with the
complexity of this family,” hopefully within the county, so
that visits could be in person, if appropriate.
Mother also had the services of a parent coach,
Farnam,9 beginning in October 2020. At the outset, Farnam
recommended therapeutically supervised parent-child visi-
tation and family therapy for mother and J. She also recom-
mended residential treatment for J, closer to Wallowa. In
addition, mother was engaged with DHS, attending prog-
ress meetings and meeting with Fisher, J’s permanency
case worker.
7
According to DHS, those allegations were not substantiated, resulting in no
follow-up action.
8
Although not fully set out in the record, we understand WRAP to be a col-
laborative planning process involving J, their mental health providers, DHS,
foster parents, mother, and mother’s service providers. In December 2020,
J requested a new WRAP coordinator, because they did not feel comfortable with
the one assigned.
9
Farnam is a licensed clinical social worker who was engaged to provide
parent education and support services to mother.
Cite as 321 Or App 733 (2022) 741
In fall 2020, J requested to legally change their
name and also to receive hormonal therapy. DHS is sup-
porting J in those requests. Fisher discussed with J that
they needed to consult with their attorney about the legal
ramifications of the name change. Fisher also explained
to J that the Oregon Health Plan does not cover hormone
therapy until a child is 15 years old and recommends that
the child have access to a therapist knowledgeable in gender
dysphoria. J was placed on a wait list for that type of ther-
apy; they were still on that wait list at the commencement
of the permanency hearing. According to both Fisher and
Farnam, mother expressed support for J’s self-exploration
in terms of their gender identity, and the use of J’s chosen
name and pronouns, but felt that more permanent changes
should not be made until J is older.
As will be significant to our analysis later, in late
October 2020, after a review hearing, the juvenile court
ordered that, “[p]ursuant to the case plan, in-person ther-
apeutic visits between mother and child will begin as soon
as possible, with DHS coordinating transportation with the
child in Douglas County and mother in Wallowa County.”
DHS was unable to find therapeutic visitation services at
that time, and Brent indicated to Fisher that she would be
unable to provide that. After extended discussions between
Fisher, Brent, mother, and Farnam, Brent agreed to facili-
tate weekly family therapy, with Farnam present to support
mother. Mother and J participated in four or five of such
sessions, beginning November 20, 2020, and continuing
through December. All but one of the sessions were held
remotely.
According to Brent, the sessions were “[t]ense” and
“[u]nproductive.” Sometimes J would shut down; other times
the meeting would get heated. She testified that mother
was “[d]ismissive” regarding J’s gender identity and did not
make an effort to use J’s chosen name rather than J’s legal
name. J’s foster mother, Murray, was also present for some
of the sessions. Murray echoed Brent’s recollection about
the heatedness of the sessions and testified that she did not
feel that they were beneficial to J. Farnam described the
sessions as seemingly being run by J and not supportive of
742 Dept. of Human Services v. H. K.
mother. Fisher noted that it was difficult for the therapists
to navigate their respective roles during the sessions.
As noted, only one of the family therapy sessions
was held in person, on December 18. At that point, J and
mother had not seen each other in close to a year. J appeared
happy to see mother and “there appeared to be a closeness.”
However, according to Brent, there did not appear to be a
willingness to discuss anything pertaining to reunification.
In mid-November, after J earned a cell phone by
working with their therapeutic foster parents, J’s phone con-
tact with mother increased from approximately once a week
to almost daily; that contact included calls, text messages,
and social media. J began to be overwhelmed with the num-
ber of messages from mother and in December expressed
the wish to have less contact with her.
In a December report and letter to DHS, Farnam
noted her recommendation “that they begin participation in
family therapy by a skilled family therapist who is familiar
with their history and is impartial and/or uninvolved in a
dual relationship with either of them.” At the permanency
hearing, Farnam testified that the lack of regular contact—
ideally in-person contact—between mother and J was the
primary hinderance in the case.
On January 29, 2021, Brent informed the parties
that she would no longer facilitate the family therapy ses-
sions and recommended that DHS engage a family therapist
who was not a therapist for J or mother. Brent explained
that she was not predominately a family therapist, that
she did not feel that it was a good fit for her, and that she
needed to focus on just being J’s therapist. Brent continued
as J’s individual therapist until J left the Douglas County
placement. At that time, she recommended no contact with
mother, but she clarified that she had never recommended
against in-person family therapy facilitated by an indepen-
dent therapist. She also believed that J would benefit from
more intensive therapeutic services and recommended indi-
vidual therapy two to three times per week.
The permanency hearing took place over three
days—January 27, March 24, and April 28, 2021. At the
Cite as 321 Or App 733 (2022) 743
time of the first hearing date, J was still living in the
Douglas County therapeutic foster home, where they had
been for about eight months. At the end of February, how-
ever, they were moved from that foster home and placed at
Robinswood,10 a residential group home in the Portland area
for youth in DHS care.11 J’s concerning behaviors escalated
while at Robinswood, both in terms of “verbal aggression”
toward staff and other youth and self-harming. One cutting
incident required medical attention and five or six stitches,
another required approximately 40 stitches. J had weekly
mental health support while at Robinswood; they were also
waiting to be assigned an outpatient individual mental
health therapist.
Absent a court order, in-person visitation was gen-
erally not allowed at Robinswood due to COVID-19 restric-
tions. Fisher arranged for weekly phone contact between
J and mother, but J refused to take the second call, and,
after that, the calls were ended at Dudley’s recommendation
(see below). Mother continued to write letters to J and to
send care packages. J sometimes said they wanted contact
with mother, other times they said they did not. J has also
expressed a desire to be adopted.
Dudley evaluated J for the second time in March
2021, and his report was admitted into evidence at the
April 28 permanency hearing date. Dudley noted that
mother had made progress, but J was adamant about not
returning home, and that the “quality of contact and rela-
tionship between [mother] and [J] ha[d] deteriorated over the
last year.” According to Dudley, J “believe[s] their mother to
be domineering, uncaring, insensitive to their gender iden-
tity, and does not believe their mother is capable of a level
of behavior change to where [J] would feel safe, supported,
and nurtured.” Dudley did not recommend return to par-
ent, concerned that J would engage in behaviors such that
they would not be safe in mother’s home, or that escalating
10
That move was due to the foster parent no longer being able to provide a
placement, rather than anything to do with J. J was initially moved to a different
GOBHI therapeutic foster home, but that did not work out, and they were moved
to Robinswood after just a week or so.
11
Robinswood is a 60-day stabilization program; J was scheduled to be dis-
charged from that program on May 5.
744 Dept. of Human Services v. H. K.
conflict would require law enforcement or DHS intervention,
resulting in the need for a higher level of service and care for
J. Dudley did, however, support ongoing efforts to facilitate
a plan of return to parent, noting his belief that “there has
[not] been sufficient or consistent efforts to reestablish and
improve the parent-child relationship.”
Although recognizing the system disruption caused
by COVID-19, Dudley also opined that much of the under-
lying cause of the chaos surrounding J could be attributed
to J themself. According to Dudley, J seemingly “is engaged
in effective splitting of the various supports and providers,”
noting that “[t]here have been changes in therapists, in
WRAP coordinators, of levels of contact with their mother, of
placements (albeit one was for medical issues), or of threat-
ened or actual self-harm activity, with an end result that
there has been no real consistency or stability for [J] for over
a year.” He recommended some form of residential treat-
ment for J, ideally as close as possible to Wallowa County to
allow for in-person visitation with mother; individual ther-
apeutic services with routine psychiatric consultation; and
regular family therapy, to include in-person visitation as
soon as allowed, facilitated by a therapist who was not J’s or
mother’s therapist. Finally, he recommended that, at least
initially, family therapy be the only form of contact between
J and mother; other forms of contact, such as phone calls,
texting, and social media, could be added with clinical guid-
ance as the relationship improves.
At the April 28 hearing, Fisher reported that
there were no residential treatment facilities near Wallowa
County, but that J had been accepted for residential treat-
ment at River Rock, a facility in Douglas County, after dis-
charge from Robinswood on May 4. Fisher also reported that
a referral for family therapy had been made on February 4
and a family therapist had been assigned and intake com-
pleted. The plan was for J to be transported to La Grande
for the family therapy sessions so that they could be in per-
son. However, the logistics of that had not yet been worked
out. Accordingly, at the conclusion of the hearing, it was
uncertain how frequently those sessions would occur, and
there was no date set for when those sessions would begin.
Cite as 321 Or App 733 (2022) 745
At the permanency hearing, DHS and mother were
in agreement that J could not be returned home at that
time and that the permanency plan for J should remain
return to parent.12 Fisher testified that mother has done
everything that DHS requested of her, but “[J’s] behaviors
are not stable enough to have a return plan at this time.”
And, mother needs “additional time to better understand
from [J]’s treatment providers * * * what is best in moving
forward and how to support and provide the treatment and
care that [J] needs.” Moreover, according to Fisher, J has
said that they do not want to go home and that they will
harm themself if they do go home. Thus, the only dispute at
the hearing (other than DHS’s request for a psychological
examination of mother, discussed above) was whether DHS
had made reasonable efforts toward reunification.13 See ORS
419B.476(2)(a) (requiring reasonable efforts finding in these
circumstances).14
The juvenile court ultimately entered a perma-
nency judgment continuing reunification as the permanency
plan for J and determining that DHS had made reasonable
efforts toward reunifying the family. Rather than detailing
the court’s findings in support of that determination, the
permanency judgment provided, “Supplemental Judgment
to follow, regarding further findings that are under advise-
ment.” Several months later, the court entered those supple-
mental findings (the “Supplemental Findings Re Reasonable
Efforts” order that mother challenges in this appeal).
The court found that DHS has “provided exten-
sive services to [J], including in-school educational support,
individual therapy, medical and therapeutic interventions
specifically related to their ‘gender dysphoria,’ family coun-
seling, and placements in higher level of care residential
facilities,” as well as medication management addressing J’s
12
J’s attorney expressed J’s desire that the permanency plan change to
adoption, but J does not appeal the permanency judgment continuing the plan of
reunification.
13
In advance of the hearing, mother filed a memorandum request for a no
reasonable efforts finding, to which DHS filed a response.
14
The version of ORS 419B.476(2)(a) in effect at the time of the relevant
events in this case has since been amended; however, because those amendments
do not affect our analysis, we cite to the current version of the statute.
746 Dept. of Human Services v. H. K.
mental health needs. The court also found that mother was
provided services consistent with the plan of reunification.
However, the court found that, despite those services,
“[J] continues to refuse reintegration in a family with their
mother, refuses contact with mother, and * * * perhaps most
significantly has a history of self-injurious and suicidal
behavior and ideations when confronted with potential vis-
its with their mother and the possibility of reunification
with mother. The rejection of contact with mother (outside
of family therapy sessions) by [J] and the self-injurious
behaviors have persisted despite months of therapy and
other interventions.”
In all, the court concluded that “[s]ervices to both mother
and child have been therapeutically appropriate, provided
in a timely manner consistent with the plan of care, and
provided in therapeutically recommended locations for both
mother and child.”
C. Analysis
At a permanency hearing where the plan for the
child is reunification, the court must determine, among
other things, whether DHS “has made reasonable efforts
* * * to make it possible for the ward to safely return home.”
ORS 419B.476(2)(a). “ ‘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. W. M., 310 Or App 594,
598, 485 P3d 316 (2021) (some internal quotation marks
omitted). It is DHS’s burden to prove, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that its efforts in that regard were reasonable.
Dept. of Human Services v. D. M. R., 301 Or App 436, 443,
455 P3d 599 (2019).
DHS’s efforts “must go on long enough to allow for
a meaningful assessment of whether parents are making
sufficient progress to permit reunification.” W. M., 310 Or
App at 598-99. Ultimately, whether DHS’s efforts afforded
a parent the requisite reasonable opportunity to address
Cite as 321 Or App 733 (2022) 747
the jurisdictional bases depends on the particular circum-
stances of the case. Id. at 599. Moreover, “[w]hen DHS
has failed to offer or provide a particular service to a par-
ent, we view the adequacy of DHS’s efforts in light of the
potential benefits that providing that service could have
yielded.” Dept. of Human Services v. L. M. K., 319 Or App
245, 252, 510 P3d 278 (2022) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Mother argues that DHS’s efforts here did not afford
her an opportunity to make it possible for J to return to her
care—and thus fell short of the legal standard—because
DHS failed to provide adequate services to meet J’s mental
health needs and to make it possible for J and mother to suc-
cessfully engage in the family counseling that was needed
to repair the relationship. DHS responds that the record
supports the court’s factual findings that extensive services
were provided to aid in reunification, including individual
therapy for mother and J, several family therapy sessions,
residential treatment for J, as recommended by Dudley and
Farnam, and WRAP services, and that those services were
“ ‘therapeutically appropriate’ ” and “ ‘provided in a timely
manner.’ ” (Quoting juvenile court’s findings.) Thus, DHS
contends, the court did not err in determining that DHS’s
efforts were reasonable.
We first note that DHS fails to directly engage
with mother’s legal argument. Mother is not contending—
nor do we find—that the juvenile court’s factual findings
with respect to the services offered to mother and J are not
supported by the record. Rather, the question presented
by mother’s appeal is whether those efforts by DHS—
undeniably supported by the record—were reasonable for
purposes of ORS 419B.476(2)(a), which is a legal question.
V. A. R., 301 Or App at 567. In other words, did the services
provided by DHS—even if extensive and otherwise thera-
peutically appropriate and timely—afford mother a reason-
able opportunity to demonstrate that she was capable of
becoming a minimally adequate parent? We conclude that
they did not.
No one appears to dispute that, from the outset of
this case, the primary impediment to reunification of mother
748 Dept. of Human Services v. H. K.
and J was the estranged relationship between mother and
J, and J’s continued opposition to returning home and insis-
tence that they would harm themself if forced to do so. Most,
if not all, of the professional service providers working with
this family recognized that therapeutic visitation and/or
family therapy with a neutral provider, preferably in per-
son, was necessary for reunification to be possible. Mother’s
therapist, Lembke, recommended “a skilled family therapist
to deal with the complexity of this family,” in person if pos-
sible. Farnam, mother’s parent coach, from the beginning
suggested therapeutically supervised parent-child visita-
tion and family therapy for mother and J. At one point, she
specifically recommended family therapy by a skilled family
therapist familiar with J’s and mother’s history and unin-
volved in a “dual relationship with either of them.” It was
Farnam’s opinion that the lack of regular contact between
mother and J was the primary roadblock in the case. Brent,
J’s therapist, also noted the need for in-person family therapy
facilitated by an independent therapist. And, significantly,
the juvenile court in October 2020, ordered that “in-person
therapeutic visits” between mother and J begin “as soon as
possible.” Further, the record reflects that J was willing to
participate in family therapy, even when they otherwise did
not want contact with mother.
Yet, at the time of the permanency hearing, more
than 14 months after J entered substitute care, only five
or six family therapy sessions had taken place, and those
had been facilitated—not by a neutral therapist—but by J’s
individual therapist, whose expertise, by her own admis-
sion, was not family therapy. And, notably, only one of those
sessions had been in person. Even at the conclusion of the
permanency hearing, in April 2021, although a neutral fam-
ily therapist had finally been assigned and the plan was to
transport J to La Grande so that the sessions could be held
in person, those sessions had yet to begin, nor was there
a date set for when that would happen. Thus, almost six
months after the court ordered in-person therapeutic visita-
tion to begin “as soon as possible,” it still had not occurred
(with the exception of a single in-person visit) and DHS was
uncertain when that would actually begin and how often it
might occur.
Cite as 321 Or App 733 (2022) 749
Given that, by all accounts, in-person family ther-
apy by a skilled, neutral therapist, or therapeutic visitation,
was key to repairing the relationship between mother and J,
and that, in turn, was key to the possibility of reunification,
we conclude that DHS’s efforts were not reasonable. Indeed,
J’s psychological evaluator, Dudley, found that “the quality
of contact and relationship” between mother and J had actu-
ally deteriorated while J was in care, and there had not been
“sufficient or consistent efforts to reestablish and improve”
the relationship.
We recognize the challenge that the circumstances
of this case present, and especially so, given that the events
here were occurring in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic,
with its associated shutdowns and restrictions. Nonetheless,
“institutional barriers” “do not categorically excuse DHS
from meeting its obligation under ORS 419B.476(2)(a), an
obligation that includes allowing enough time to give par-
ents a reasonable opportunity to use those efforts to ame-
liorate the risk of harm to their child caused by the juris-
dictional bases.” Dept. of Human Services v. M. W., 319 Or
App 81, 84, 509 P3d 752 (2022) (internal quotation marks
omitted).15
In a sense, this case is comparable to W. M. There,
we held that, because the in-person training that was nec-
essary to enable the mother to care for her child was essen-
tially unavailable due to the pandemic, “DHS’s efforts must
extend long enough to allow for parents to obtain the type of
training the pandemic has prevented them from having, and
long enough to allow for meaningful assessment of whether
that training will permit them to be minimally adequate
parents.” 310 Or App at 599; see also J. D. R., 312 Or App at
518 (“DHS’s efforts are not reasonable when they are not suf-
ficiently aimed at alleviating the specific controlling juris-
dictional basis.”); K. G. T., 306 Or App at 382 (court erred in
determining that DHS efforts were reasonable where ser-
vices that were not provided were “critical to the case plan,
15
DHS does not contend that this was a situation in which it was impossible
to provide in-person family therapy or therapeutic visitation with J and mother.
See K. G. T., 306 Or App at 381 (“[I]f it is truly not possible to provide a particular
service to a particular parent, the ‘cost’ necessarily outweighs the benefit, no
matter how great the benefit might be.” (Footnote omitted.)).
750 Dept. of Human Services v. H. K.
and go directly to ameliorating the jurisdictional basis”);
V. A. R., 301 Or App at 570-71 (where DHS delayed providing
the recommended type of training, so that mother had only
five sessions by the time of the permanency hearing, mother
was not given a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate that,
with those services, she could become a minimally adequate
parent).
This case also stands in stark contrast to Dept. of
Human Services v. M. K., 285 Or App 448, 396 P3d 294,
rev den, 361 Or 885 (2017). In that case, we rejected the
mother’s argument that DHS’s efforts were not reasonable
because DHS had failed to provide therapeutic visitation.
However, in that case, the children adamantly refused to
participate and there was evidence in the record that fur-
ther efforts to pursue such visitation “would have been
unproductive or even harmful.” Id. at 459. Here, by contrast
J was willing to participate in family therapy. And all of
the mental health providers, including J’s therapist, agreed
that such services would be helpful—even necessary—to
facilitate family reunification.
D. Conclusion
By DHS’s own account, mother had done everything
that was asked of her toward reunification. She was enti-
tled to a reasonable opportunity to work toward repairing
the relationship with J, such that J might be able to return
home. The court erred in determining that DHS’s efforts
toward reunification were reasonable.
Motion to dismiss denied. “Supplemental Findings
Re Reasonable Efforts” order reversed and remanded; order
requiring mother to submit to psychological evaluation
vacated and remanded; otherwise affirmed.