Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.343 (2026)

Recommendations of committing court; case planning; plan contents

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      419B.343 Recommendations of committing court; case planning; plan contents. (1) To ensure effective planning for wards, the Department of Human Services shall take into consideration recommendations and information provided by the committing court before placement in any facility. The department shall ensure that the case planning in any case:

      (a) For the reunification of the family bears a rational relationship to the jurisdictional findings that brought the ward within the court’s jurisdiction under ORS 419B.100;

      (b) Incorporates the perspective of the ward and the family and, whenever possible, allows the family to assist in designing its own service programs, based on an assessment of the family’s needs and the family’s solutions and resources for change; and

      (c) Is integrated with other agencies in cooperation with the caseworkers.

      (2) Except in cases when the plan is something other than to reunify the family, the department shall include in the case plan:

      (a) Appropriate services to allow the parent the opportunity to adjust the parent’s circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it possible for the ward to safely return home within a reasonable time; and

      (b) A concurrent permanent plan to be implemented if the parent is unable or unwilling to adjust the parent’s circumstances, conduct or conditions in such a way as to make it possible for the ward to safely return home within a reasonable time.

      (3) For a ward 14 years of age or older, the department shall ensure that:

      (a) Case planning for the ward addresses the ward’s needs and goals for a transition to successful adulthood, including needs and goals related to housing, physical and mental health, education, employment, community connections and supportive relationships; and

      (b) The ward’s case plan includes a document that describes the rights of the ward as specified in ORS 418.201 and a signed acknowledgment by the ward that the ward has been provided with a copy of the document and that rights contained in the document have been explained to the ward in an age-appropriate manner.

      (4) The case plan for a ward in substitute care must include the health and education records of the ward, including the most recent information available regarding:

      (a) The names and addresses of the ward’s health and education providers;

      (b) The grade level of the ward’s academic performance;

      (c) The ward’s school record;

      (d) Whether the ward’s placement takes into account proximity to the school in which the ward is enrolled at the time of placement;

      (e) The ward’s immunizations;

      (f) Any known medical problems of the ward;

      (g) The ward’s medications; and

      (h) Any other relevant health and education information concerning the ward that the department determines is appropriate to include in the records. [1993 c.33 §110; 1995 c.770 §1; 1997 c.873 §13; 1999 c.859 §12; 2001 c.686 §15; 2003 c.396 §59; 2003 c.544 §3a; 2007 c.611 §5; 2015 c.254 §7]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 2000–2025 · leading case: Dept. of Human Servs. v. W. C. T., 501 P.3d 44 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
Dept. of Human Servs. v. W. C. T., 501 P.3d 44 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 31× “337(2) and ORS 419B.343 and holding that, although the allegations of jurisdiction did not involve a mental health issue, the psychological evaluation would aid DHS in assessing the father’s safety risk, given his conviction for riot and assault, and would help deter- mine what…”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. P. W., 460 P.3d 1044 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 4× “337(2) addresses the court’s authority to order DHS to provide services for children and parents, and ORS 419B.343 addresses DHS’s obligations to also consider all information provided by the court in its case planning activ- ities.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. A. F. (In re D. G.), 433 P.3d 459 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “Further, ORS 419B.343(1)(a) requires DHS to ensure that its case planning for family reunification "bears a rational relationship" to the findings that brought the child within the court's jurisdiction.”
State ex rel. State Off. for Servs. to Child. & Families v. Klamath Tribe, 11 P.3d 701 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “” SCF asserts that the agreement is authorized by ORS 419B.343, 4 which directs that, in making case plans, *113 it must incorporate the children’s families’ perspectives and consider family resources.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. K. L. R., 230 P.3d 49 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “Because mother did not preserve that argument before the juvenile court in the disposition hearing, we decline to address it in this appeal, except to note that, unless a polygraph examination is a permitted aspect of treatment, training, or services under ORS 419B.343, ORS…”
State ex rel. Juv. Dep't v. G. L., 185 P.3d 483 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 5× “337(2) must be read in the context of ORS 419B.343, which requires that DHS’s case planning bear a rational relationship to the jurisdictional findings.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. B.W., 275 P.3d 989 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “The court noted further that a report in the record indicated that father had been disciplined while incarcerated due to negative behaviors, and found that that was another reason to require the psychological evaluation.”
State Ex Rel. State Off. for Servs. to Child. & Families v. Imus, 39 P.3d 213 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “” 4 ORS 419B.343 provides, in part: “(1) To ensure effective planning for children, the State Office for Services to Children and Families shall take into consideration recommendations and information provided by the committing court before placement in any facility.”
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dep't v. Brown, 27 P.3d 502 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “Assuming without deciding that ORS 419B.343(2j(a) is applicable, those services have been ongoing for more than a 12-month period, giving rise to the presumption that SCF’s alternate plan for permanent placement is appropriate.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. D. L. H., 284 P.3d 1233 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “) Further, ORS 419B.343(1) requires DHS to “take into consideration recommendations and information provided by the committing court” before it places the child in any facility to ensure effective planning for the child.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. D. L. H., 292 P.3d 565 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “See also OAR 413-040-0005(14) (defining a permanency plan as “a written course of action for achieving safe and lasting family resources for the child,” suggesting one active permanency plan at a time); ORS 419B.343(2)(b) (when the case plan is reunification, DHS shall include a…”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. S. M., 323 P.3d 947 (Or. 2014). “When a juvenile court appoints DHS as a ward’s legal custodian, ORS chapter 419B contemplates that DHS will develop a case plan to ameliorate the problems that brought the ward within the court’s jurisdiction, ORS 419B.343; that DHS will “make reasonable efforts to make it…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.343(1) — 10 cases
Dept. of Human Servs. v. W. C. T., 501 P.3d 44 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “337(2) and ORS 419B.343 and holding that, although the allegations of jurisdiction did not involve a mental health issue, the psychological evaluation would aid DHS in assessing the father’s safety risk, given his conviction for riot and assault, and would help deter- mine what…”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. D. L. H., 284 P.3d 1233 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “) Further, ORS 419B.343(1) requires DHS to “take into consideration recommendations and information provided by the committing court” before it places the child in any facility to ensure effective planning for the child.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. P. W., 460 P.3d 1044 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “337(2) addresses the court’s authority to order DHS to provide services for children and parents, and ORS 419B.343 addresses DHS’s obligations to also consider all information provided by the court in its case planning activ- ities.”
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dep't v. Rial, 46 P.3d 217 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
State ex rel. Juv. Dep't v. Risland, 51 P.3d 697 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.343(1)(A) — 1 case
Dept. of Human Servs. v. W. C. T., 501 P.3d 44 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “337(2) and ORS 419B.343 and holding that, although the allegations of jurisdiction did not involve a mental health issue, the psychological evaluation would aid DHS in assessing the father’s safety risk, given his conviction for riot and assault, and would help deter- mine what…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.343(1)(a) — 9 cases
Dept. of Human Servs. v. W. C. T., 501 P.3d 44 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “337(2) and ORS 419B.343 and holding that, although the allegations of jurisdiction did not involve a mental health issue, the psychological evaluation would aid DHS in assessing the father’s safety risk, given his conviction for riot and assault, and would help deter- mine what…”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. A. F. (In re D. G.), 433 P.3d 459 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “Further, ORS 419B.343(1)(a) requires DHS to ensure that its case planning for family reunification "bears a rational relationship" to the findings that brought the child within the court's jurisdiction.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. P. W., 460 P.3d 1044 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “337(2) addresses the court’s authority to order DHS to provide services for children and parents, and ORS 419B.343 addresses DHS’s obligations to also consider all information provided by the court in its case planning activ- ities.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. K. J. (In re K. L. J.), 435 P.3d 819 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
State Ex Rel. State Off. for Servs. to Child. & Families v. Imus, 39 P.3d 213 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “” 4 ORS 419B.343 provides, in part: “(1) To ensure effective planning for children, the State Office for Services to Children and Families shall take into consideration recommendations and information provided by the committing court before placement in any facility.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.343(2) — 4 cases
Dept. of Human Servs. v. P. W., 460 P.3d 1044 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “337(2) addresses the court’s authority to order DHS to provide services for children and parents, and ORS 419B.343 addresses DHS’s obligations to also consider all information provided by the court in its case planning activ- ities.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. K. L. R., 230 P.3d 49 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “Because mother did not preserve that argument before the juvenile court in the disposition hearing, we decline to address it in this appeal, except to note that, unless a polygraph examination is a permitted aspect of treatment, training, or services under ORS 419B.343, ORS…”
State ex rel. Juv. Dep't v. L. V., 182 P.3d 866 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. v. LV, 182 P.3d 866 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.343(2)(a) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dep't v. Brown, 27 P.3d 502 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “Assuming without deciding that ORS 419B.343(2j(a) is applicable, those services have been ongoing for more than a 12-month period, giving rise to the presumption that SCF’s alternate plan for permanent placement is appropriate.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.343(2)(b) — 3 cases
Dep't of Human Servs. v. D. L. H., 292 P.3d 565 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “See also OAR 413-040-0005(14) (defining a permanency plan as “a written course of action for achieving safe and lasting family resources for the child,” suggesting one active permanency plan at a time); ORS 419B.343(2)(b) (when the case plan is reunification, DHS shall include a…”
State ex rel. Juv. Dep't v. L. V., 182 P.3d 866 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. v. LV, 182 P.3d 866 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.343(4) — 2 cases
Dept. of Human Servs. v. C. E. S., 536 P.3d 1089 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
Dept. of Human Servs. v. C. E. S. (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.343(l)(a) — 4 cases
State ex rel. Juv. Dep't v. G. L., 185 P.3d 483 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “337(2) must be read in the context of ORS 419B.343, which requires that DHS’s case planning bear a rational relationship to the jurisdictional findings.”
A. F. v. Oregon Dep't of Human Servs., 284 P.3d 1189 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
Dep't of Human Servs. v. A. E. F., 323 P.3d 482 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
Dep't of Human Servs. v. L. F., 299 P.3d 599 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
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.