419B.366
Guardianship; motion; procedure.
(1) A party, or a person granted rights of limited participation for the
purpose of filing a guardianship motion, may file a motion to establish a
guardianship. The motion must be in writing and state with particularity the
factual and legal grounds for the motion.
(2) Except as
otherwise provided in subsection (3) of this section, the facts supporting any
finding made or relief granted under this section must be established by a
preponderance of evidence.
(3) Upon the
filing of a motion to establish guardianship under this section, the court
shall make a finding, subject to the procedures under ORS 419B.636 (4),
regarding whether there is reason to know that the child is an Indian child.
(4)(a) The court
may grant the guardianship of an Indian child only:
(A) If the court
has offered the parties the opportunity to participate in mediation as required
under ORS 419B.517;
(B) If requested
by the tribe, an agreement is in place that requires the proposed guardian to
maintain connection between the Indian child and the Indian child’s tribe; and
(C) If after
inquiry as required under ORS 419B.636 (2) and notice as required under ORS
419B.639 (2), the court:
(i) Finds, by
clear and convincing evidence, including the testimony of one or more qualified
expert witnesses under ORS 419B.642, that the continued custody of the Indian
child by the child’s parent or custody by the child’s Indian custodian is
likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the Indian child;
(ii) Finds that
active efforts under ORS 419B.645 to reunite the Indian family did not
eliminate the necessity for guardianship based on serious emotional or physical
damage to the Indian child; and
(iii) Finds that
the placement of the Indian child complies with the placement preferences as
described in ORS 419B.654 (1) or, if not, upon the moving party’s motion under
ORS 419B.654 (3), the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that there
is good cause to depart from the placement preferences.
(b) The evidence
under paragraph (a) of this subsection must show a causal relationship between
the particular conditions in the Indian child’s home and the likelihood that
custody or continued custody of the Indian child will result in serious
emotional or physical damage to the particular Indian child who is the subject
of the child custody proceeding, as defined in ORS 419B.603. Evidence that
shows the existence of community or family poverty, isolation, single
parenthood, custodian age, crowded or inadequate housing, substance abuse or
nonconforming social behavior does not, by itself, establish a causal
relationship as required by this paragraph.
(c) As used in
this subsection, “custody” and “continued custody” have the meanings described
in ORS 419B.606.
(5) In a
proceeding under this section, the court may receive testimony and reports as
provided in ORS 419B.325.
(6) If the court
has approved a plan of guardianship under ORS 419B.476, the court may grant the
motion for guardianship if the court determines, after a hearing, that:
(a) The ward
cannot safely return to a parent within a reasonable time;
(b) Adoption is
not an appropriate plan for the ward;
(c) The proposed
guardian is suitable to meet the needs of the ward and is willing to accept the
duties and authority of a guardian; and
(d) Guardianship
is in the ward’s best interests. In determining whether guardianship is in the
ward’s best interests, the court shall consider the ward’s wishes.
(7) Unless
vacated pursuant to ORS 419B.368, a guardianship established under this section
continues as long as the ward is subject to the court’s jurisdiction as
provided in ORS 419B.328. [2003 c.229 §2; 2007 c.333 §2; 2020 s.s.1 c.14 §44;
2021 c.398 §61]
Notes of Decisions
Dep't of Human Servs. v. J. G., 317 P.3d 936 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 12× “Relying on that section of ICWA, mother appeals a judgment establishing a durable guardianship for her son under ORS 419B.366, 1 arguing that the juvenile court’s failure to make an “active efforts” finding in the guardianship judgment is reversible error.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. K. H., 301 P.3d 427 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 34× “Mother appeals from a judgment that established a durable guardianship over her child, E, ORS 419B.366. 1 She assigns error to the juvenile court’s denial of her request for an evidentiary hearing on the motion by the Department of Human Services (DHS) to establish the…”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. J. C. (In re A. M.), 444 P.3d 1098 (Or. 2019).
· cites it 33× “*1099 **225 This juvenile dependency case concerns the requirements for vacating a general guardianship established pursuant to ORS 419B.366. In the juvenile court, mother moved to terminate the court's wardship over her child, A, and vacate the general guardianship the court…”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. S. M. H., 388 P.3d 1204 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 3× “, 274 Or App 430 , 440 n 4, 360 P3d 746 (2015) (noting that the term “durable guardianship” is not found in ORS 419B.366, but that we use the term “to distinguish a guardianship established under that statute from a permanent guardianship * * * and from a guardianship as an…”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. A. S., 380 P.3d 319 (Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016).
· cites it 6× “At the time of the permanency hearing in June and July 2015, the permanency plan was for reunification, with a concurrent plan of durable guardianship, ORS 419B.366. 1 At the hearing, the juvenile court took testimony from the family’s caseworker, *496 several psychologists,…”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. S. M., 323 P.3d 947 (Or. 2014).
· cites it 3× “ORS 419B.366(2), (5). 3 With that statutory background in mind, we turn to the issue that divides the parties — whether DHS, as either the children’s legal custodian or their guardian, has statutory authority to have the children immunized against common childhood diseases over…”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. L., 369 P.3d 1159 (Or. 2016).
“” ORS 419B.366(2), (5). The juvenile court changed the permanent plan for R from reunification to APPLA.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. S. A., 281 P.3d 655 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 7× “At the same time, the Department of Human Services (DHS) moved to establish a particular guardian for C under ORS 419B.366. After a hearing, the juvenile court entered an order establishing the guardianship.”
Keffer v. A. R. M., 497 P.3d 781 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 4× “365, added a second type of guardianship—known colloquially as a “durable” or “general” guardianship—codified at ORS 419B.366, removed all references to the probate code, and added statutes that cover the authority and duty of a guard- ian, entry of guardianship letters,…”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. A. D. J., 300 Or. App. 427 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 7× “” Ruling directly on whether a “durable” or general guardianship, ORS 419B.366, as proposed by mother, would meet the requirements of the children, the juvenile court found that a general guardianship “does not offer the req- uisite level of permanency and is not consistent with…”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. N. B., 344 Or. App. 124 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 8× “In December 2024, ODHS filed a motion under ORS 419B.366 to establish a general guardianship for L, and a guardianship hearing occurred in February 2025.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.366(1) — 4 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.366(2) — 19 cases
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. L., 369 P.3d 1159 (Or. 2016).
“” ORS 419B.366(2), (5). The juvenile court changed the permanent plan for R from reunification to APPLA.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. S. M., 323 P.3d 947 (Or. 2014).
“ORS 419B.366(2), (5). 3 With that statutory background in mind, we turn to the issue that divides the parties — whether DHS, as either the children’s legal custodian or their guardian, has statutory authority to have the children immunized against common childhood diseases over…”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. A. S., 380 P.3d 319 (Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016).
“At the time of the permanency hearing in June and July 2015, the permanency plan was for reunification, with a concurrent plan of durable guardianship, ORS 419B.366. 1 At the hearing, the juvenile court took testimony from the family’s caseworker, *496 several psychologists,…”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. A. D. J., 300 Or. App. 427 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“” Ruling directly on whether a “durable” or general guardianship, ORS 419B.366, as proposed by mother, would meet the requirements of the children, the juvenile court found that a general guardianship “does not offer the req- uisite level of permanency and is not consistent with…”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. K. H., 301 P.3d 427 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“Mother appeals from a judgment that established a durable guardianship over her child, E, ORS 419B.366. 1 She assigns error to the juvenile court’s denial of her request for an evidentiary hearing on the motion by the Department of Human Services (DHS) to establish the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.366(3) — 1 case
Dep't of Human Servs. v. J. G., 317 P.3d 936 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“Relying on that section of ICWA, mother appeals a judgment establishing a durable guardianship for her son under ORS 419B.366, 1 arguing that the juvenile court’s failure to make an “active efforts” finding in the guardianship judgment is reversible error.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.366(4) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.366(4)(a)(C)(i) — 6 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.366(4)(a)(C)(ii) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.366(4)(a)(i) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.366(4)(b) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.366(5) — 13 cases
Dep't of Human Servs. v. S. M. H., 388 P.3d 1204 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“, 274 Or App 430 , 440 n 4, 360 P3d 746 (2015) (noting that the term “durable guardianship” is not found in ORS 419B.366, but that we use the term “to distinguish a guardianship established under that statute from a permanent guardianship * * * and from a guardianship as an…”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. K. H., 301 P.3d 427 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“Mother appeals from a judgment that established a durable guardianship over her child, E, ORS 419B.366. 1 She assigns error to the juvenile court’s denial of her request for an evidentiary hearing on the motion by the Department of Human Services (DHS) to establish the…”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. J. G., 317 P.3d 936 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“Relying on that section of ICWA, mother appeals a judgment establishing a durable guardianship for her son under ORS 419B.366, 1 arguing that the juvenile court’s failure to make an “active efforts” finding in the guardianship judgment is reversible error.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. S. M., 323 P.3d 947 (Or. 2014).
“ORS 419B.366(2), (5). 3 With that statutory background in mind, we turn to the issue that divides the parties — whether DHS, as either the children’s legal custodian or their guardian, has statutory authority to have the children immunized against common childhood diseases over…”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. A. S., 380 P.3d 319 (Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016).
“At the time of the permanency hearing in June and July 2015, the permanency plan was for reunification, with a concurrent plan of durable guardianship, ORS 419B.366. 1 At the hearing, the juvenile court took testimony from the family’s caseworker, *496 several psychologists,…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.366(5)(a) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.366(5)(c) — 2 cases
Dep't of Human Servs. v. S. A., 281 P.3d 655 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“At the same time, the Department of Human Services (DHS) moved to establish a particular guardian for C under ORS 419B.366. After a hearing, the juvenile court entered an order establishing the guardianship.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.366(5)(d) — 1 case
Dep't of Human Servs. v. A. S., 380 P.3d 319 (Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016).
“At the time of the permanency hearing in June and July 2015, the permanency plan was for reunification, with a concurrent plan of durable guardianship, ORS 419B.366. 1 At the hearing, the juvenile court took testimony from the family’s caseworker, *496 several psychologists,…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.366(6) — 16 cases
Dep't of Human Servs. v. J. C. (In re A. M.), 444 P.3d 1098 (Or. 2019).
“*1099 **225 This juvenile dependency case concerns the requirements for vacating a general guardianship established pursuant to ORS 419B.366. In the juvenile court, mother moved to terminate the court's wardship over her child, A, and vacate the general guardianship the court…”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. N. B., 344 Or. App. 124 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“In December 2024, ODHS filed a motion under ORS 419B.366 to establish a general guardianship for L, and a guardianship hearing occurred in February 2025.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.366(6)(a) — 4 cases
Dept. of Human Servs. v. N. B., 344 Or. App. 124 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“In December 2024, ODHS filed a motion under ORS 419B.366 to establish a general guardianship for L, and a guardianship hearing occurred in February 2025.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.366(6)(c) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.366(6)(d) — 6 cases
Dept. of Human Servs. v. N. B., 344 Or. App. 124 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“In December 2024, ODHS filed a motion under ORS 419B.366 to establish a general guardianship for L, and a guardianship hearing occurred in February 2025.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.366(a) — 2 cases
Dept. of Human Servs. v. N. B., 344 Or. App. 124 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“In December 2024, ODHS filed a motion under ORS 419B.366 to establish a general guardianship for L, and a guardianship hearing occurred in February 2025.”
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.