419B.192
Placement of child or ward; preference given to relatives and caregivers;
written findings of court required.
(1) As used in this section:
(a) “Caregiver
relationship” has the meaning given that term in ORS 419B.116.
(b) “Placement”
includes adoptive placement of a child or ward, selection of a guardian for a
child or ward or placement or continuation of placement of a child or ward in
substitute care.
(2) If the court
finds that a child or ward is in need of placement, there shall be a preference
given to placement of the child or ward with relatives, with current caretakers
and with persons who have a caregiver relationship with the child or ward. The
Department of Human Services shall make diligent efforts to place the child or
ward with such persons and shall report to the court the efforts made by the
department to effectuate that placement.
(3) If a child or
ward in need of placement has a sibling also in need of placement, the
department shall make diligent efforts to place the siblings together and shall
report to the court the efforts made by the department to carry out the
placement, unless the court finds that placement of the siblings together is
not in the best interests of the child or the ward or the child’s or the ward’s
sibling.
(4) In attempting
to place the child or ward pursuant to subsections (2) and (3) of this section,
the department shall consider the following:
(a) The ability
of the person being considered to provide safety for the child or ward,
including a willingness to cooperate with any restrictions placed on contact
between the child or ward and others, and to prevent anyone from influencing
the child or ward in regard to the allegations of the case;
(b) The ability
of the person being considered to support the efforts of the department to
implement the permanent plan for the child or ward;
(c) The ability
of the person being considered to meet the child or ward’s physical, emotional
and educational needs, including the child or ward’s need to continue in the
same school or educational placement;
(d) The ability
of the person being considered to maintain safe, long-term contact with
siblings, relatives and caregivers known to the child or ward and others with
whom the child or ward has developed an emotional attachment;
(e) Which person
has the closest existing personal relationship with the child or ward if more
than one person requests to have the child or ward placed with them pursuant to
this section; and
(f) The ability
of the person being considered to provide a placement for the child’s or ward’s
sibling who is also in need of placement or continuation in substitute care.
(5) When the
court is required to make findings regarding the department’s diligent efforts
to place a child or ward with relatives, current caretakers or persons with a
caregiver relationship under subsection (2) of this section, and the court
determines that, contrary to the placement decision of the department,
placement with a relative, current caretaker or caregiver is not in the best
interest of the child or ward under ORS 419B.349, the court shall make written
findings setting forth the reasons why the court finds that placement of the
child or ward with an available relative, current caretaker or caregiver is not
in the best interest of the child.
(6)
Notwithstanding subsections (2) to (5) of this section, in cases where there is
reason to know, as described in ORS 419B.636, the child or ward is an Indian
child, the department shall make diligent efforts to place the child or ward
according to the placement preferences described in ORS 419B.654.
(7) The
department may not move a child or ward who is in substitute care for the sole
purpose of preventing the establishment of a caregiver relationship or a
current caretaker relationship. [1997 c.479 §4; 1999 c.569 §9; 2003 c.396 §43;
2005 c.449 §1; 2005 c.521 §2; 2007 c.806 §5; 2009 c.565 §1; 2020 s.s.1 c.14 §32;
2023 c.291 §4]
Notes of Decisions
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dep't v. Brown, 27 P.3d 502 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“ORS 419B.192 requires: “(1) If the court finds that a child is in need of placement or continuation in substitute care, there shall be a preference given to placement with relatives and persons who have a child-parent relationship with the child as defined in ORS 109.”
State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. J. N., 200 P.3d 615 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
““(b) Whether the agency having guardianship or legal custody of the child or ward has made diligent efforts to place the child or ward pursuant to ORS 419B.192. “(c) The number of placements made, schools attended, face-to-face contacts with the assigned case worker and visits…”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. M. G. J., 374 Or. 228 (Or. 2025).
“192 to place S and P together and with a relative with whom they had a caregiver relationship; and (3) placement in substitute care with the children’s adoptive resource was necessary and in the children’s best interests. 6 Under ORS 419B.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. D. D. Q. -R., 344 Or. App. 612 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 2× “” In response, ODHS argues that father’s argument is unpre- served, because his argument in the juvenile court was related to ODHS making “diligent efforts” to place the child with a relative as required under ORS 419B.192, and not “reasonable efforts * * * to make it possible…”
State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. C. B., 206 P.3d 1139 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“Mother contended that the foster family was not biologically related to the child and were not “relatives” who must be given preference in DHS’s placement decisions, under ORS 419B.192(1). Mother acknowledged the existence of a DHS administrative rule, OAR 413-070-0069(1)(a)(D),…”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. M. G. J., 374 Or. 228 (Or. 2025).
“First, the court determined that: (1) the tribe had requested and approved both TCA as the new permanency plan and the proposed tribal-adoptive family as the planned placement; (2) DHS had made the efforts required by ORS 419B.192 to place S and P together and with a relative…”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. M. A. C., 347 Or. App. 340 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 4× “ORS 419B.192 provides a preference for placement of children and wards of the court with, among others, cur- rent caretakers, providing: “Commitment of a child or ward to the Department of Human Services does not terminate the court’s continuing jurisdiction to protect the…”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. D. D. Q. -R., 344 Or. App. 612 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 2× “” In response, ODHS argues that father’s argument is unpre- served, because his argument in the juvenile court was related to ODHS making “diligent efforts” to place the child with a relative as required under ORS 419B.192, and not “reasonable efforts * * * to make it possible…”
In Re Mn, 200 P.3d 615 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“"(b) Whether the agency having guardianship or legal custody of the child or ward has made diligent efforts to place the child or ward pursuant to ORS 419B.192. "(c) The number of placements made, schools attended, face-to-face contacts with the assigned case worker and visits…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.192(1) — 2 cases
State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. C. B., 206 P.3d 1139 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“Mother contended that the foster family was not biologically related to the child and were not “relatives” who must be given preference in DHS’s placement decisions, under ORS 419B.192(1). Mother acknowledged the existence of a DHS administrative rule, OAR 413-070-0069(1)(a)(D),…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.192(2) — 3 cases
Dept. of Human Servs. v. D. D. Q. -R., 344 Or. App. 612 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“” In response, ODHS argues that father’s argument is unpre- served, because his argument in the juvenile court was related to ODHS making “diligent efforts” to place the child with a relative as required under ORS 419B.192, and not “reasonable efforts * * * to make it possible…”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. D. D. Q. -R., 344 Or. App. 612 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“” In response, ODHS argues that father’s argument is unpre- served, because his argument in the juvenile court was related to ODHS making “diligent efforts” to place the child with a relative as required under ORS 419B.192, and not “reasonable efforts * * * to make it possible…”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. M. A. C., 347 Or. App. 340 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
“ORS 419B.192 provides a preference for placement of children and wards of the court with, among others, cur- rent caretakers, providing: “Commitment of a child or ward to the Department of Human Services does not terminate the court’s continuing jurisdiction to protect the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.192(2)(d) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.