Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.449 (2026)

Review hearing by court; findings

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

      419B.449 Review hearing by court; findings. (1) Upon receiving any report required by ORS 419B.440, the court may hold a hearing to review the child or ward’s condition and circumstances and to determine if the court should continue jurisdiction and wardship or order modifications in the care, placement and supervision of the child or ward. The court shall hold a hearing:

      (a) In all cases under ORS 419B.440 (1)(b)(B) when the parents’ rights have been terminated;

      (b) If requested by the child or ward, the attorney for the child or ward, if any, the parents or the public or private agency having guardianship or legal custody of the child or ward within 30 days of receipt of the notice provided in ORS 419B.452;

      (c) Not later than six months after receipt of a report made under ORS 419B.440 (1)(a) on a ward who is in the legal custody of the Department of Human Services pursuant to ORS 419B.337 but who is placed in the physical custody of a parent or a person who was appointed the ward’s legal guardian prior to placement of the ward in the legal custody of the department;

      (d) Within 30 days after receipt of a report made under ORS 419B.440 (1)(b)(C); or

      (e) Within 10 days after receipt of a report made under ORS 419B.440 (1)(c).

      (2) The court shall conduct a hearing provided in subsection (1) of this section in the manner provided in ORS 419B.310, except that the court may receive testimony and reports as provided in ORS 419B.325. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court shall enter findings of fact.

      (3) If the child or ward is in substitute care and the decision of the court is to continue the child or ward in substitute care, the findings of the court shall specifically state:

      (a)(A) Why continued care is necessary as opposed to returning the child or ward home or taking prompt action to secure another permanent placement; and

      (B) The expected timetable for return or other permanent placement.

      (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 had with parents or siblings since the child or ward has been in the guardianship or legal custody of the agency and whether the frequency of each of these is in the best interests of the child or ward.

      (d) For a child or ward 14 years of age or older, whether the child or ward is progressing adequately toward graduation from high school and, if not, the efforts that have been made by the agency having custody or guardianship to assist the child or ward to graduate.

      (e) For a ward 16 years of age or older with a permanency plan of another planned permanent living arrangement, the steps the department is taking to ensure that:

      (A) The ward’s substitute care provider is following the reasonable and prudent parent standard; and

      (B) The ward has regular, ongoing opportunities to engage in age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate activities, including consultation with the ward in an age-appropriate manner about the opportunities the ward has to participate in the activities.

      (4) If the ward is in the legal custody of the department but has been placed in the physical custody of the parent or a person who was appointed the ward’s legal guardian prior to placement of the ward in the legal custody of the department, and the decision is to continue the ward in the legal custody of the department and the physical custody of the parent or guardian, the findings of the court shall specifically state:

      (a) Why it is necessary and in the best interests of the ward to continue the ward in the legal custody of the department; and

      (b) The expected timetable for dismissal of the department’s legal custody of the ward and termination of the wardship.

      (5) If the child or ward is an Indian child and the child or ward is in the legal custody of the department but has been placed in the physical custody of the parent or a person who was appointed the child’s or ward’s legal guardian prior to placement of the child or ward in the legal custody of the department, the court may order that the child or ward be placed in the physical custody of a substitute care provider only after making all of the inquiry, notice and findings required under ORS 419B.305 and 419B.310.

      (6) In making the findings under subsection (2) of this section, the court shall consider the efforts made to develop the concurrent case plan, including, but not limited to, identification of appropriate permanent placement options for the child or ward both inside and outside this state and, if adoption is the concurrent case plan, identification and selection of a suitable adoptive placement for the child or ward.

      (7)(a) If the child or ward is an Indian child, the findings of the court shall specifically state whether the department has provided active efforts to reunify the Indian child with the Indian child’s parent or Indian custodian.

      (b) If the court finds that active efforts have not been provided, the court shall order that the Indian child be immediately returned to the Indian child’s parent.

      (c) Notwithstanding paragraph (b) of this subsection, if the court finds that returning the Indian child to the Indian child’s parent will result in substantial and immediate danger or threat of danger to the Indian child, the court shall:

      (A) Determine the period of time during which active efforts were not provided;

      (B) Order the department to provide those services necessary for the provision of active efforts;

      (C) Order the department to continue placement of the Indian child pursuant to the placement preferences under ORS 419B.654; and

      (D) Order the department to continue to foster relationships with any individuals identified by the department as long-term placement resources meeting the placement preferences under ORS 419B.654.

      (8) In addition to findings of fact required by subsection (2) of this section, the court may order the department to consider additional information in developing the case plan or concurrent case plan.

      (9) Any final decision of the court made pursuant to the hearing provided in subsection (1) of this section is appealable under ORS 419A.200. [1993 c.33 §132; 1999 c.568 §1; 2001 c.480 §8; 2001 c.910 §4; 2003 c.396 §77; 2007 c.610 §4; 2007 c.611 §7; 2007 c.806 §9; 2015 c.254 §4; 2015 c.795 §10; 2020 s.s.1 c.14 §46; 2021 c.398 §73]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 52 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: State Ex Rel. State Off. for Servs. to Child. & Families v. Mitchell, 49 P.3d 838 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
State Ex Rel. State Off. for Servs. to Child. & Families v. Mitchell, 49 P.3d 838 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 20× “In 1999, the legislature amended ORS 419B.449 and ORS 419B.476 to add juvenile court oversight to SCF's "identification and selection" of suitable adoptive families.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. A. R. S., 310 P.3d 1186 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 6× “At that hearing, child moved to dismiss jurisdiction and objected to “removing” him from the United States.”
State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. M. A., 205 P.3d 36 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 5× “However, mother does not argue that the court erred by failing to make the findings required by ORS 419B.449 at the conclusion of the hearing in this case.”
State ex rel. Juv. Dep't v. Vockrodt, 934 P.2d 620 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 5× “” The hearing in this case was a hearing under ORS 419B.449(1), and therefore, under ORS 419B.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. D. D., 241 P.3d 1177 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “” ORS 419B.449 provides, in part: “(2) The court shall conduct a hearing provided in subsection (1) of this section in the manner provided in ORS 419B.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. J. G., 244 P.3d 385 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 5× “’s appeal concerns an order entered after a review hearing held pursuant to ORS 419B.449. In that order, the juvenile court also scheduled a permanency hearing for May 19, 2010.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. L., 379 P.3d 741 (Marion Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). “ORS 419B.449(1) (providing for review hearing for court “to review the child or ward’s condition and circumstances and to determine if the court should continue jurisdiction and wardship or order modifications in the care, placement and supervision of the child or ward”).”
State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. J. N., 200 P.3d 615 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 7× “476(2)(d) provides that, at a permanency hearing, the court is required to, among other things, “[m]ake the findings of fact under ORS 419B.449(2).” That statute, in turn, provides that, “[a]t the conclusion of the [permanency] hearing, the court shall enter findings of fact.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. T. J. N., 323 Or. App. 258 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 3× “325; hearings to review the child’s circumstances and to determine whether the court should continue jurisdiction or order changes in the child’s care, placement, and super- vision, ORS 419B.449; and permanency hearings, ORS 419B.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. L. H. S. (In re J. M. S.), 425 P.3d 775 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “476(2)(d) (requiring the juvenile court, at a permanency hearing, to "[m]ake the findings of fact under ORS 419B.449(3)," which requires findings on a variety of topics); ORS 419C.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. J. R. F., 273 P.3d 87 (Or. 2012). · cites it 2× “*573 Eight months later, the juvenile court held a review hearing pursuant to ORS 419B.449, to determine whether it should continue its jurisdiction or order modifications to the care, placement, or supervision of D.”
State v. A. L. M., 220 P.3d 449 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 5× “ORS 419B.449(1) provides that a court shall “hold a hearing to review the child or ward’s condition and circumstances and to determine if the court should continue jurisdiction and wardship or order modifications in the care, placement and supervision of the child or ward,” in…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.449(1) — 11 cases
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. L., 379 P.3d 741 (Marion Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). “ORS 419B.449(1) (providing for review hearing for court “to review the child or ward’s condition and circumstances and to determine if the court should continue jurisdiction and wardship or order modifications in the care, placement and supervision of the child or ward”).”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. A. R. S., 310 P.3d 1186 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “At that hearing, child moved to dismiss jurisdiction and objected to “removing” him from the United States.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. D. M., 275 P.3d 971 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
State ex rel. Juv. Dep't v. Vockrodt, 934 P.2d 620 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “” The hearing in this case was a hearing under ORS 419B.449(1), and therefore, under ORS 419B.”
State v. A. L. M., 220 P.3d 449 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “ORS 419B.449(1) provides that a court shall “hold a hearing to review the child or ward’s condition and circumstances and to determine if the court should continue jurisdiction and wardship or order modifications in the care, placement and supervision of the child or ward,” in…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.449(1)(b) — 2 cases
State v. A. L. M., 220 P.3d 449 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “ORS 419B.449(1) provides that a court shall “hold a hearing to review the child or ward’s condition and circumstances and to determine if the court should continue jurisdiction and wardship or order modifications in the care, placement and supervision of the child or ward,” in…”
State v. Alm, 220 P.3d 449 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.449(1)(d) — 1 case
State v. Alm, 220 P.3d 449 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.449(2) — 17 cases
State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. M. A., 205 P.3d 36 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “However, mother does not argue that the court erred by failing to make the findings required by ORS 419B.449 at the conclusion of the hearing in this case.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. D. D., 241 P.3d 1177 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “” ORS 419B.449 provides, in part: “(2) The court shall conduct a hearing provided in subsection (1) of this section in the manner provided in ORS 419B.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. M. M. B., 290 P.3d 891 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. J. N., 200 P.3d 615 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “476(2)(d) provides that, at a permanency hearing, the court is required to, among other things, “[m]ake the findings of fact under ORS 419B.449(2).” That statute, in turn, provides that, “[a]t the conclusion of the [permanency] hearing, the court shall enter findings of fact.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. A. R. S., 310 P.3d 1186 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “At that hearing, child moved to dismiss jurisdiction and objected to “removing” him from the United States.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.449(3) — 7 cases
State Ex Rel. State Off. for Servs. to Child. & Families v. Mitchell, 49 P.3d 838 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “In 1999, the legislature amended ORS 419B.449 and ORS 419B.476 to add juvenile court oversight to SCF's "identification and selection" of suitable adoptive families.”
State ex rel. Juv. Dep't v. Vockrodt, 934 P.2d 620 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “” The hearing in this case was a hearing under ORS 419B.449(1), and therefore, under ORS 419B.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. L. H. S. (In re J. M. S.), 425 P.3d 775 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “476(2)(d) (requiring the juvenile court, at a permanency hearing, to "[m]ake the findings of fact under ORS 419B.449(3)," which requires findings on a variety of topics); ORS 419C.”
State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. J. N., 200 P.3d 615 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “476(2)(d) provides that, at a permanency hearing, the court is required to, among other things, “[m]ake the findings of fact under ORS 419B.449(2).” That statute, in turn, provides that, “[a]t the conclusion of the [permanency] hearing, the court shall enter findings of fact.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. D. D., 241 P.3d 1177 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “” ORS 419B.449 provides, in part: “(2) The court shall conduct a hearing provided in subsection (1) of this section in the manner provided in ORS 419B.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.449(3)(A) — 1 case
Dep't of Human Servs. v. A. R. S., 310 P.3d 1186 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “At that hearing, child moved to dismiss jurisdiction and objected to “removing” him from the United States.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.449(3)(a)(A) — 1 case
Dep't of Human Servs. v. M. M. B., 290 P.3d 891 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.449(4) — 3 cases
State Ex Rel. State Off. for Servs. to Child. & Families v. Mitchell, 49 P.3d 838 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “In 1999, the legislature amended ORS 419B.449 and ORS 419B.476 to add juvenile court oversight to SCF's "identification and selection" of suitable adoptive families.”
State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. J. N., 200 P.3d 615 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “476(2)(d) provides that, at a permanency hearing, the court is required to, among other things, “[m]ake the findings of fact under ORS 419B.449(2).” That statute, in turn, provides that, “[a]t the conclusion of the [permanency] hearing, the court shall enter findings of fact.”
In Re Mn, 200 P.3d 615 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.449(4)(b) — 2 cases
State v. A. L. M., 220 P.3d 449 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “ORS 419B.449(1) provides that a court shall “hold a hearing to review the child or ward’s condition and circumstances and to determine if the court should continue jurisdiction and wardship or order modifications in the care, placement and supervision of the child or ward,” in…”
State v. Alm, 220 P.3d 449 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.449(5) — 1 case
Dept. of Human Servs. v. ST, 248 P.3d 427 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.449(7) — 1 case
Dep't of Human Servs. v. A. B. B., 396 P.3d 306 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.449(l)(d) — 1 case
State v. A. L. M., 220 P.3d 449 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “ORS 419B.449(1) provides that a court shall “hold a hearing to review the child or ward’s condition and circumstances and to determine if the court should continue jurisdiction and wardship or order modifications in the care, placement and supervision of the child or ward,” in…”
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.