Dept. of Human Services v. B. N.

No. 586 November 8, 2023 107

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 J. T., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, and J. T., Respondent, v. B. N., Appellant. Deschutes County Circuit Court 22JU03767; A181189 (Control) In the Matter of J. M. D., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, and J. M. D., Respondent, v. B. N., Appellant. Deschutes County Circuit Court 22JU03768; A181190 Bethany P. Flint, Judge. Submitted October 10, 2023. Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Holly Telerant, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

108 Dept. of Human Services v. B. N.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Carson L. Whitehead, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent Department of Human Services. Ginger Fitch and Youth, Rights & Justice filed the brief for respondent children. Before Egan, Presiding Judge, and Kamins, Judge, and DeVore, Senior Judge. KAMINS, J. Affirmed.

Nonprecedential Memo Op: 329 Or App 107 (2023) 109

KAMINS, J. In these consolidated cases, mother appeals from disposition judgments in which the juvenile court ruled that the Department of Human Services (DHS) made reasonable efforts to reunify her with her daughters, R and M. In two assignments of error, mother asserts that the juvenile court erred in ruling that DHS’s efforts as to both children quali- fied as “reasonable.” We affirm. In a combined argument, mother contends that DHS failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify her with R and M.1 See ORS 419B.476(2) (“At a permanency hear- ing the court shall: * * * determine whether [DHS] has made reasonable efforts * * *). Specifically, mother contends that DHS failed to make reasonable efforts because it refused to collaborate with mother on her action agreement; it failed to “address [mother’s] communication barriers with the department”; and it did not “ensure that mother could best avail herself of the supports offered, such as transportation to visits.” Indeed, the Citizen Review Board (CRB)2 observed communication challenges between mother and her DHS caseworker—which the CRB points out may have been exac- erbated by mother’s substance use—“making it more diffi- cult for the two parties to have a positive and productive working relationship for the purposes of effectuating safe reunification.” DHS argues that despite the CRB’s findings, there was evidence from which the juvenile court could deter- mine that its efforts were reasonable to reunify mother with her children. That evidence, DHS asserts, reflects mother’s continual unwillingness to engage with DHS. We are “bound by the juvenile court’s factual find- ings as to what efforts DHS has made, so long as there is any evidence in the record to support them;” however, whether 1 DHS separates the argument because it sees R’s case as distinct from M’s “in at least two respects: (1) the juvenile court took jurisdiction over [M] just ten weeks before the dispositional hearing and (2) the [Citizen Review Board] never reviewed [M]’s case before the dispositional hearing.” Because the facts underly- ing the Citizen Review Board’s findings are based on the same facts relating to both children, we consider the arguments together. 2 The CRB is a local volunteer board that provides public oversight to foster care cases. The CRB reviews a child’s or ward’s case and sends its recommen- dations to all relevant legal parties in the case, including the court. See ORS 419A.090 - 419A.128.

110 Dept. of Human Services v. B. N.

DHS made “reasonable efforts” is a legal conclusion that we review for errors of law. Dept. of Human Services v. K. G. T., 306 Or App 368, 370, 473 P3d 131 (2020). Applying that standard of review, we affirm. The juvenile court determined that, although “there’s likely a personality disconnect” between mother and DHS, DHS nevertheless had made reasonable efforts towards reunification. The record indicates that DHS pro- vided referral services to mother, including housing ser- vices, alcohol and drug support services, and counseling and therapeutic services. DHS addressed the transporta- tion issues by driving mother to visits with her children.3 Accounting for the totality of circumstances, which includes DHS’s attempts to engage with mother and mother’s reluc- tance to engage with DHS, we agree with the juvenile court that DHS made reasonable efforts towards reunification. See Dept. of Human Services v. M. K., 257 Or App 409, 418- 19, 306 P3d 763 (2013) (explaining that the “reasonableness of DHS’s efforts depends on the totality of circumstances of the parent and child”). Affirmed.

3 Although we agree with the trial court that DHS provided reasonable ser- vices as required by statute, we observe that the CRB’s concerns are rational. Had DHS been more responsive to mother’s concerns over the Action Agreement, particularly considering mother’s mistrust of DHS, her participation in services may have been more fulsome.