114 June 4, 2025 No. 500
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 T. J. L., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. J. D. L., Jr., Appellant. Lane County Circuit Court 21JU04755; A185700 (Control) In the Matter of N. J. F. L., aka B. G. C., aka N. L., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. J. D. L., Jr., Appellant. Lane County Circuit Court 22JU03067; A185701
Valeri L. Love, Judge. Submitted April 30, 2025. Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Elena C. Stross, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Inge D. Wells, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 341 Or App 114 (2025) 115
Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Joyce, Judge, and Jacquot, Judge. TOOKEY, P. J. Affirmed.
116 Dept. of Human Services v. J. D. L.
TOOKEY, P. J. In this consolidated juvenile dependency case, father appeals judgments changing the permanency plans for his two children from reunification to permanent guardianship. Both children are members of the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians, making the case sub- ject to the federal Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 USC §§ 1901- 1963, and the Oregon Indian Child Welfare Act, Or Laws 2020, ch 14, §§ 1-66 (Spec Sess 1) (codifying new provisions at ORS chapter 419B.600 to ORS 419B.665 and amending vari- ous sections of ORS chapters 350, 418, 419A, and 419B). The juvenile court changed the plans after deter- mining that, although the Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS) made “active efforts,” father failed to make sufficient progress toward reunification. See ORS 419B.476(5)(k)(A) (requiring “active efforts” on the part of ODHS to facilitate an Indian child’s safe return home); ORS 419B.645 (defining “active efforts”). On appeal, father raises four assignments of error, two with respect to each child. In his first and second assignments of error, father contends that the juvenile court “erred in ruling that the department’s efforts to reunify [children] qualified as ‘active efforts.’ ” In his third and fourth assignments of error, father contends that, as a result, the juvenile court “erred in ruling to change [children]’s permanency plans away from reuni- fication to guardianship.” For the reasons explained below, we affirm. Father has not requested de novo review, and this is not an exceptional case in which de novo review is war- ranted. ORS 19.415(3)(b) (providing that de novo review is a matter of discretion when the appeal is not from a proceed- ing for the termination of parental rights); Dept. of Human Services v. J. G., 260 Or App 500, 502, 317 P3d 936 (2014) (“[T]here is a presumption against granting de novo review, and we do so only in exceptional cases.”). Absent de novo review, we “review the juvenile court’s legal conclusions for errors of law” and “we defer to the juvenile court’s findings of fact if there is any evidence in the record to support them.” Dept. of Human Services v. Y. B., 372 Or 133, 136, 546 P3d 255 (2024).
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 341 Or App 114 (2025) 117
To change the permanency plan for an Indian child to something other than reunification, the juvenile court must determine by clear and convincing evidence that “active efforts as described in ORS 419B.645 were provided to make it possible for the Indian child to safely return home[.]” ORS 419B.476(5)(k)(A).1 “Active efforts” involve a heightened standard that “obligates [O]DHS to do more than create a reunification plan and require the client to execute it independently.” Dept. of Human Services v. M. D., 266 Or App 789, 793, 340 P3d 86 (2014), rev den, 356 Or 767 (2015) (internal brackets and quotation marks omitted); see also ORS 419B.645(3) (“Active efforts require a higher standard of conduct than reasonable efforts.”). ODHS “must assist the [parent] through the steps of a reunification” in a manner that reflects the particular circumstances of the case. M. D., 266 Or App at 793 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also ORS 419B.645(4) (listing requirements for “active efforts” by ODHS). We address father’s assignments of error together. As noted above, father argues on appeal that ODHS “did not prove that it actively assisted father in walking through the steps of accessing necessary resources to ameliorate either [jurisdictional] basis” for children’s removal. In father’s view, ODHS “did not make qualifying efforts” to get him into a drug treatment program, to help him access grief counseling after the death of his sister, or to provide him with training and education on how to care for children’s health issues. In light of those deficiencies, father argues, the juvenile court was not permitted to change children’s permanency plans away from reunification. ODHS responds that, with respect to each of father’s arguments, the alleged deficiency resulted from father’s dishonesty and lack of engagement with resources or opportunities provided by ODHS. Having reviewed the record, we agree with ODHS and conclude that the record supports the juvenile court’s determi- nation that ODHS made active efforts to make it possible for children to safely return home. The record indicates that, over 1 ORS 419B.476(5)(k) requires that the juvenile make additional determi- nations before changing a permanency plan away from reunification, but father challenges only the juvenile court’s active efforts determination under subpara- graph (A).
118 Dept. of Human Services v. J. D. L.
the life of the case, ODHS consistently provided father with housing assistance, transportation assistance, nutrition assis- tance, and parent training, and ODHS connected father with various treatment facilities and other counseling services. See Dept. of Human Services v. L. B., 325 Or App 176, 180- 81, 528 P3d 808 (2023) (concluding that “the juvenile court did not err in making an active efforts determination” where ODHS developed a safety plan, arranged for visits, set up alcohol and drug evaluation and treatment, scheduled men- tal health counseling, and provided housing and transporta- tion assistance); see also M. D., 266 Or App at 793 (concluding that ODHS efforts were active where it “consulted psychol- ogists and scheduled appointments, planned visits, issued gas vouchers, actively searched for relative placements, and worked with the Cherokee tribe to enroll [the] child”). The record also indicates that father “continued to struggle with honesty” and with challenges underlying the jurisdictional bases for children’s removal. But father’s lack of progress does not show that ODHS efforts fell short of the statutory requirement, especially given evidence that father did “not * * * actively engage[ ] in services” that ODHS pro- vided. See Dept. of Human Services v. M. G. J., 326 Or App 426, 438, 532 P3d 905, rev den, 371 Or 476 (2023) (empha- sizing that “there is ample support for the juvenile court’s determination that” O]DHS “made active efforts to reunify mother with her children” where ODHS repeatedly tried to contact the mother to provide services, even though the mother did not engage); see also L. B., 325 Or App at 182 (concluding that ODHS was not required to provide spe- cific services from which the mother might have benefitted, “given [the] mother’s lack of progress despite the extensive efforts” that ODHS “had already made”). We further note that the tribal representative com- municated to the juvenile court that, in the Tribe’s view, ODHS went “above and beyond” in its efforts to assist father. We conclude that the juvenile court did not err in determin- ing that ODHS made active efforts and in changing chil- dren’s permanency plans from reunification to permanent guardianship. Affirmed.