Dept. of Human Services v. R. J. B.

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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Nonprecedential Memo Op: 327 Or App 413 (2023) 415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.