419B.349 Court
authority to review placement or proposed placement. (1) Commitment of a child or ward
to the Department of Human Services does not terminate the court’s continuing
jurisdiction to protect the rights of the child or ward or the child or ward’s
parents or guardians. Notwithstanding ORS 419B.337 (5), if upon review of a
placement or proposed placement of a child or ward made or to be made by the
department the court determines that the placement or proposed placement is not
in the best interest of the child or ward, the court may direct the department
to place or maintain the child or ward in the care of the child or ward’s
parents, in foster care with a foster care provider who is a relative, in
foster care with a foster care provider who is or has been a current caretaker
for the child, in foster care with a foster care provider who is not a relative
or current caretaker, in residential care, in group care or in some other
specific type of residential placement, but unless otherwise required by law,
the court may not direct a specific placement. The actual planning and
placement of the child or ward is the responsibility of the department. Nothing
in this subsection affects any contractual right of an individual or a private
agency to refuse or terminate a placement.
(2) The court may
not exercise its discretion to direct the department to place or maintain a
child or ward where the effect of the direction will be to remove the child or
ward from, or prevent the placement of the child or ward with, a person
described in ORS 419B.440 (2)(c). [1993 c.33 §112; 1997 c.497 §1; 1997 c.764 §1;
2003 c.396 §61; 2007 c.235 §1; 2007 c.806 §13; 2015 c.795 §6]
419B.350 [1997 c.873 §15; 1999 c.859 §13;
repealed by 2001 c.686 §25]
Notes of Decisions
Dep't of Human Servs. v. S. E. K. H., 389 P.3d 1181 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 8× “As DHS observes, ORS 419B.349 is significant. It gives the juvenile court the authority to review DHS’s placement decisions.”
State Ex Rel. State Off. for Servs. to Child. & Families v. Mitchell, 49 P.3d 838 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 4× “Likewise, the court, under ORS 419B.349, "may direct the department to place the child in foster care, residential care, group care or some other specific type of residential placement, but unless otherwise required by law, the court may not direct a specific placement.”
Adams v. Oregon State Child.'s Servs. Div., 886 P.2d 19 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 4× “” ORS 419B.349. The state tacitly concedes that petitioners may challenge CSD’s denial of their adoption request, but it argues that such a challenge should be brought in juvenile court, not circuit court, because the juvenile court “has exclusive original jurisdiction in any…”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. T. J. N., 323 Or. App. 258 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“ORS 419B.349. ORS chapter 419B provides for various types of hearings, with varying procedural requirements, includ- ing, for example, prejurisdictional shelter hearings, ORS 419B.”
State ex rel. Juv. Dep't v. Rivers, 886 P.2d 1024 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
“The court made findings and ultimately dismissed *516 the petition on the basis of a post-trial ruling that the Rivers lacked standing to challenge CSD’s placement decision.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. S. G. W., 335 Or. App. 343 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 3× “To change a DHS-chosen placement under ORS 419B.349, a juvenile court must determine that the place- ment is not in the child’s best interests.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. M. A. C., 347 Or. App. 340 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 2× “(nonprecedential memorandum opinion), in which we stated that ORS 419B.349 “reflects a presumption that the place- ment selected by [ODHS] is in a child’s best interests [and] necessarily places the burden on the party challenging the placement to prove facts allowing for a…”
State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Guldager, 69 P.3d 764 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “337; ORS 419B.349. * * * [T]he statutes indicate that the court’s authority is limited to reviewing the adoptive placement [made by DHS] for ‘suitability in the same way it reviews the agency’s other decisions regarding children in its custody.”
Wyatt B. v. Kotek (D. Or. 2021).
“” ORS 419B.349(1). Rather: Notwithstanding ORS 419B.”
Wyatt B. v. Kotek (D. Or. 2021).
“” ORS 419B.349(1). Rather: Notwithstanding ORS 419B.”
Wyatt B. v. Kotek (9th Cir. 2025).
“See Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.349. Even so, ODHS maintains responsibility for the child and can remove the child from the parent’s home without further action by the court.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. B. B., 327 Or. App. 683 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“Citing ORS 419B.349(2), DHS responds that a “visit” is not a type of placement and that the juvenile court only had authority to “direct another type of placement, including placement ‘in the care of the child or ward’s par- ents’ or in different levels of substitute care.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.349(1) — 5 cases
Dep't of Human Servs. v. S. E. K. H., 389 P.3d 1181 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“As DHS observes, ORS 419B.349 is significant. It gives the juvenile court the authority to review DHS’s placement decisions.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. S. G. W., 335 Or. App. 343 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“To change a DHS-chosen placement under ORS 419B.349, a juvenile court must determine that the place- ment is not in the child’s best interests.”
Wyatt B. v. Kotek (D. Or. 2021).
“” ORS 419B.349(1). Rather: Notwithstanding ORS 419B.”
Wyatt B. v. Kotek (D. Or. 2021).
“” ORS 419B.349(1). Rather: Notwithstanding ORS 419B.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. M. A. C., 347 Or. App. 340 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
“(nonprecedential memorandum opinion), in which we stated that ORS 419B.349 “reflects a presumption that the place- ment selected by [ODHS] is in a child’s best interests [and] necessarily places the burden on the party challenging the placement to prove facts allowing for a…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.349(2) — 2 cases
Dept. of Human Servs. v. B. B., 327 Or. App. 683 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“Citing ORS 419B.349(2), DHS responds that a “visit” is not a type of placement and that the juvenile court only had authority to “direct another type of placement, including placement ‘in the care of the child or ward’s par- ents’ or in different levels of substitute care.”
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.