419B.476
Conduct of hearing; court determinations; orders. (1) A permanency hearing shall be
conducted in the manner provided in ORS 418.312, 419B.310, 419B.812 to 419B.839
and 419B.908, except that the court may receive testimony and reports as
provided in ORS 419B.325.
(2) At a
permanency hearing the court shall:
(a) If the case
plan at the time of the hearing is to reunify the family, determine whether the
Department of Human Services has made reasonable efforts or, if the ward is an
Indian child, active efforts as described in ORS 419B.645 to make it possible for
the ward to safely return home and whether the parent has made sufficient
progress to make it possible for the ward to safely return home. In making its
determination, the court shall consider the ward’s health and safety the
paramount concerns.
(b) If the case
plan at the time of the hearing is something other than to reunify the family,
determine whether the department has made reasonable efforts to place the ward
in a timely manner in accordance with the plan, including, if appropriate,
reasonable efforts to place the ward through an interstate placement, and to
complete the steps necessary to finalize the permanent placement.
(c) If the case
plan at the time of the hearing is something other than to reunify the family,
determine whether the department has considered permanent placement options for
the ward, including, if appropriate, whether the department has considered both
permanent in-state placement options and permanent interstate placement options
for the ward.
(d) Make the
findings of fact under ORS 419B.449 (3).
(e) If the child
is an Indian child and the case plan at the time of the hearing is something
other than to reunify the family, make a finding whether, after the department’s
consultation with the child’s tribe, and, if the tribe appears at the hearing,
the court’s direct consultation with the tribe, tribal customary adoption, as
described in ORS 419B.656, is an appropriate permanent placement for the child
if reunification is unsuccessful.
(3) When the ward
is 14 years of age or older, in addition to making the determination required
by subsection (2) of this section, at a permanency hearing the court shall
review the comprehensive plan for the ward’s transition to successful adulthood
and determine and make findings as to:
(a) Whether the
plan is adequate to ensure the ward’s transition to successful adulthood;
(b) Whether the
department has offered appropriate services pursuant to the plan; and
(c) Whether the department
has involved the ward in the development of the plan.
(4) At a
permanency hearing the court may:
(a) If the case
plan changed during the period since the last review by a local citizen review
board or court hearing and a plan to reunify the family was in effect for any
part of that period, determine whether the department has made reasonable
efforts or, if the ward is an Indian child, active efforts as described in ORS
419B.645 to make it possible for the ward to safely return home. In making its
determination, the court shall consider the ward’s health and safety the
paramount concerns;
(b) If the case
plan changed during the period since the last review by a local citizen review
board or court hearing and a plan other than to reunify the family was in
effect for any part of that period, determine whether the department has made
reasonable efforts to place the ward in a timely manner in accordance with the
plan, including, if appropriate, placement of the ward through an interstate
placement, and to complete the steps necessary to finalize the permanent
placement;
(c) If the court
determines that further efforts will make it possible for the ward to safely
return home within a reasonable time, order that the parents participate in
specific services for a specific period of time and make specific progress
within that period of time;
(d) Determine the
adequacy and compliance with the case plan and the case progress report;
(e) Review the
efforts made by the department to develop the concurrent permanent plan,
including but not limited to identification of appropriate permanent in-state
placement options and appropriate permanent interstate placement options and,
if adoption is the concurrent case plan, identification and selection of a
suitable adoptive placement for the ward;
(f) Order the
department to develop or expand the case plan or concurrent permanent plan and
provide a case progress report to the court and other parties within 10 days
after the permanency hearing;
(g) Order the
department or agency to modify the care, placement and supervision of the ward;
(h) Order the
local citizen review board to review the status of the ward prior to the next
court hearing; or
(i) Set another
court hearing at a later date.
(5) The court
shall enter an order within 20 days after the permanency hearing. In addition
to any determinations or orders the court may make under subsection (4) of this
section, the order shall include the following:
(a) The court’s
determinations required under subsections (2) and (3) of this section,
including a brief description of the efforts the department has made with
regard to the case plan in effect at the time of the permanency hearing.
(b) The court’s
determination of the permanency plan for the ward that includes whether and, if
applicable, when:
(A) The ward will
be returned to the parent;
(B) The ward will
be placed for adoption, and a petition for termination of parental rights will
be filed;
(C) The ward will
be referred for establishment of legal guardianship;
(D) The ward will
be placed with a fit and willing relative; or
(E) If the ward
is 16 years of age or older, the ward will be placed in another planned
permanent living arrangement.
(c) If the court
determines that the permanency plan for the ward should be to return home
because further efforts will make it possible for the ward to safely return
home within a reasonable time, the court’s determination of the services in
which the parents are required to participate, the progress the parents are
required to make and the period of time within which the specified progress
must be made.
(d) If the court
determines that the permanency plan for the ward should be adoption, the court’s
determination of whether one of the circumstances in ORS 419B.498 (2) is
applicable.
(e) If the court
determines that the permanency plan for the ward should be establishment of a
legal guardianship, the court’s determination of why neither placement with
parents nor adoption is appropriate.
(f) If the court
determines that the permanency plan for a ward should be placement with a fit
and willing relative, the court’s determination of why placement with the ward’s
parents, or for adoption, or placement with a legal guardian, is not
appropriate.
(g) If the court
determines that the permanency plan for the ward should be tribal customary
adoption, the court’s determination of whether one of the circumstances in ORS
419B.498 (2) is applicable.
(h) If the court
determines that the permanency plan for a ward 16 years of age or older should
be another planned permanent living arrangement, the court’s determinations:
(A) Why another
planned permanent living arrangement is in the ward’s best interests and a
compelling reason, that must be documented by the department, why it would not
be in the best interests of the ward to be returned home, placed for adoption,
placed with a legal guardian or placed with a fit and willing relative; and
(B) That the
department has taken steps to ensure that:
(i) The ward’s
substitute care provider is following the reasonable and prudent parent
standard; and
(ii) 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.
(i) If the
current placement is not expected to be permanent, the court’s projected
timetable for return home or for placement in another planned permanent living
arrangement. If the timetable set forth by the court is not met, the department
shall promptly notify the court and parties.
(j) If the ward
is an Indian child, the tribal affiliation of the ward.
(k) If the ward
is an Indian child and if the court determines that the permanency plan for the
ward should be something other than to reunify the family, the court’s
determination, by clear and convincing evidence, that:
(A) Active
efforts as described in ORS 419B.645 were provided to make it possible for the
Indian child to safely return home;
(B) Despite the
efforts provided, continued removal of the Indian child is necessary to prevent
serious emotional or physical damage to the Indian child;
(C) The parent
has not made sufficient progress to make it possible for the Indian child to
safely return home; and
(D) The new
permanency plan complies with the placement preferences described in ORS
419B.654.
(L) If the ward
has been placed in an interstate placement, the court’s determination of
whether the interstate placement continues to be appropriate and in the best
interests of the ward.
(6) In making the
determinations under subsection (5)(h) of this section, the court shall ask the
ward about the ward’s desired permanency outcome.
(7) If the child
is an Indian child:
(a) The court
shall follow the placement preferences described in ORS 419B.654.
(b) If the court
finds that the department did not provide active efforts to make it possible
for the Indian child to safely return home, the court may not, at that
permanency hearing, change the permanency plan to something other than to
reunify the family.
(c) If the court
finds that the department did not provide active efforts to make it possible
for the Indian child to return home, except as otherwise required under ORS
419B.470, the court may not set a date for a subsequent permanency hearing
until the department has provided active efforts for the number of days that
active efforts were not previously provided.
(d)(A) If the
court determines that tribal customary adoption, as described in ORS 419B.656,
is an appropriate permanent placement for the child, and the Indian child’s
tribe consents, the court shall request that the tribe file with the court a
tribal customary adoption order or judgment evidencing that the tribal
customary adoption has been completed. The tribe must file the tribal customary
adoption order or judgment no less than 20 days prior to the date set by the
court for hearing.
(B) Upon the
tribe’s request, the court may grant an extension of time to file the tribal
customary adoption order or judgment, not to exceed 60 days.
(C) If the tribe
does not file the tribal customary adoption order or judgment within the
designated time period, the court shall order a new permanency hearing to
determine the best permanency plan for the child.
(8) Any final
decision of the court made pursuant to the permanency hearing is appealable
under ORS 419A.200. On appeal of a final decision of the court under this
subsection, the court’s finding, if any, under ORS 419B.340 (5) that the
department is not required to make reasonable efforts to make it possible for
the ward to safely return home is an interlocutory order to which a party may
assign error. [1993 c.33 §137; 1993 c.546 §128; 1999 c.568 §2; 1999 c.859 §15;
2001 c.480 §9; 2001 c.622 §50; 2001 c.686 §16; 2001 c.910 §5; 2003 c.396 §81;
2003 c.544 §1a; 2007 c.611 §8; 2007 c.806 §11; 2015 c.254 §5; 2020 s.s.1 c.14 §38;
2021 c.398 §65b]
(Termination of
Parental Rights)
Notes of Decisions
Dep't of Human Servs. v. S.J.M. (In re L.B.M.), 430 P.3d 1021 (Or. 2018).
· cites it 41× “The latter statute requires DHS to file a petition to terminate parental rights in certain circumstances including, as relevant here, when a child "has been in substitute care under the responsibility of [DHS] for 15 of the most recent 22 months.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. S. J. M., 388 P.3d 417 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 59× “This case requires us to consider whether, before changing a child’s permanency plan from reunification with parent to adoption under ORS 419B.476, a juvenile court must first determine, under ORS 419B.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. C. H., 373 Or. 26 (Or. 2024).
· cites it 23× “, 372 Or 133 , 145, 546 P3d 255 (2024), ORS 419B.476 governs the conduct of permanency hearings and changes to permanency plans.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. L.L.S. (In re Z.S.), 413 P.3d 1005 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 13× “" DHS argues that the only way that father can ameliorate the basis for jurisdiction is to obtain a "much shorter prison sentence." Because DHS lacks the power to do anything to shorten father's prison sentence, it asserts that its efforts were reasonable.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. W. C. T., 501 P.3d 44 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 14× “Instead, those subsections of ORS 419B.476 show that the several statutes are related or complimentary.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. L., 369 P.3d 1159 (Or. 2016).
· cites it 9× “We cite and quote the current version of the statute, ORS 419B.476 (2015), throughout this opinion because the changes effected by the 2015 amendment do not affect our analysis.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T.L., 403 P.3d 488 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 8× “Changes to permanency plans are governed by ORS 419B.476. As relevant here, ORS 419B.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. K. G. T., 473 P.3d 131 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 6× “, 290 Or App 132, 142 , 413 P3d 1005 (2018) (“Our case law is clear: DHS’s efforts qualify as reasonable for purposes of ORS 419B.476 if and only if those efforts supply a parent with a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate his ability to adjust his conduct and become a…”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. R., 282 P.3d 969 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 16× “ORS 419B.476. The juvenile court determined that the Department of Human Services (DHS) provided reasonable services to both parents but that the parents had not made sufficient progress to allow the child to safely return home.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. C. L., 295 P.3d 72 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 19× “ORS 419B.476(2)(a). 5 The court also determined that there was a compelling reason, documented *209 by DHS, why it would not be in B’s best interest to return home.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. L., 379 P.3d 741 (Marion Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016).
· cites it 5× “ORS 419B.476(2), (4), (5). After *680 the hearing, the juvenile court must memorialize the child’s permanency plan and any other required findings in a final order.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. C. A., 283 P.3d 956 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 15× “476(4)(c) authorizes the court during any permanency hearing to determine that further efforts will make it possible for the ward to safely return home within a reasonable time and, in such cases, to “order that the parents participate in specific services for a specific period…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(1) — 18 cases
Dept. of Human Servs. v. C. H., 373 Or. 26 (Or. 2024).
“, 372 Or 133 , 145, 546 P3d 255 (2024), ORS 419B.476 governs the conduct of permanency hearings and changes to permanency plans.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(1)(a) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(2) — 46 cases
Dept. of Human Servs. v. C. H., 373 Or. 26 (Or. 2024).
“, 372 Or 133 , 145, 546 P3d 255 (2024), ORS 419B.476 governs the conduct of permanency hearings and changes to permanency plans.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. S.J.M. (In re L.B.M.), 430 P.3d 1021 (Or. 2018).
“The latter statute requires DHS to file a petition to terminate parental rights in certain circumstances including, as relevant here, when a child "has been in substitute care under the responsibility of [DHS] for 15 of the most recent 22 months.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. L., 369 P.3d 1159 (Or. 2016).
“We cite and quote the current version of the statute, ORS 419B.476 (2015), throughout this opinion because the changes effected by the 2015 amendment do not affect our analysis.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. L., 379 P.3d 741 (Marion Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016).
“ORS 419B.476(2), (4), (5). After *680 the hearing, the juvenile court must memorialize the child’s permanency plan and any other required findings in a final order.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. L.L.S. (In re Z.S.), 413 P.3d 1005 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“" DHS argues that the only way that father can ameliorate the basis for jurisdiction is to obtain a "much shorter prison sentence." Because DHS lacks the power to do anything to shorten father's prison sentence, it asserts that its efforts were reasonable.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(2)(a) — 177 cases
Dep't of Human Servs. v. S.J.M. (In re L.B.M.), 430 P.3d 1021 (Or. 2018).
“The latter statute requires DHS to file a petition to terminate parental rights in certain circumstances including, as relevant here, when a child "has been in substitute care under the responsibility of [DHS] for 15 of the most recent 22 months.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. C. H., 373 Or. 26 (Or. 2024).
“, 372 Or 133 , 145, 546 P3d 255 (2024), ORS 419B.476 governs the conduct of permanency hearings and changes to permanency plans.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. L.L.S. (In re Z.S.), 413 P.3d 1005 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“" DHS argues that the only way that father can ameliorate the basis for jurisdiction is to obtain a "much shorter prison sentence." Because DHS lacks the power to do anything to shorten father's prison sentence, it asserts that its efforts were reasonable.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T.L., 403 P.3d 488 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“Changes to permanency plans are governed by ORS 419B.476. As relevant here, ORS 419B.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. K. G. T., 473 P.3d 131 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“, 290 Or App 132, 142 , 413 P3d 1005 (2018) (“Our case law is clear: DHS’s efforts qualify as reasonable for purposes of ORS 419B.476 if and only if those efforts supply a parent with a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate his ability to adjust his conduct and become a…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(2)(b) — 15 cases
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. C. A., 283 P.3d 956 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“476(4)(c) authorizes the court during any permanency hearing to determine that further efforts will make it possible for the ward to safely return home within a reasonable time and, in such cases, to “order that the parents participate in specific services for a specific period…”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. L., 379 P.3d 741 (Marion Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016).
“ORS 419B.476(2), (4), (5). After *680 the hearing, the juvenile court must memorialize the child’s permanency plan and any other required findings in a final order.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. C. L., 295 P.3d 72 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“ORS 419B.476(2)(a). 5 The court also determined that there was a compelling reason, documented *209 by DHS, why it would not be in B’s best interest to return home.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. R., 282 P.3d 969 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“ORS 419B.476. The juvenile court determined that the Department of Human Services (DHS) provided reasonable services to both parents but that the parents had not made sufficient progress to allow the child to safely return home.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(2)(c) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(2)(d) — 11 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(2)(e) — 4 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(4) — 6 cases
Dep't of Human Servs. v. S.J.M. (In re L.B.M.), 430 P.3d 1021 (Or. 2018).
“The latter statute requires DHS to file a petition to terminate parental rights in certain circumstances including, as relevant here, when a child "has been in substitute care under the responsibility of [DHS] for 15 of the most recent 22 months.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. S. J. M., 388 P.3d 417 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“This case requires us to consider whether, before changing a child’s permanency plan from reunification with parent to adoption under ORS 419B.476, a juvenile court must first determine, under ORS 419B.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. W. C. T., 501 P.3d 44 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“Instead, those subsections of ORS 419B.476 show that the several statutes are related or complimentary.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(4)(c) — 27 cases
Dep't of Human Servs. v. S.J.M. (In re L.B.M.), 430 P.3d 1021 (Or. 2018).
“The latter statute requires DHS to file a petition to terminate parental rights in certain circumstances including, as relevant here, when a child "has been in substitute care under the responsibility of [DHS] for 15 of the most recent 22 months.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. W. C. T., 501 P.3d 44 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“Instead, those subsections of ORS 419B.476 show that the several statutes are related or complimentary.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. L., 369 P.3d 1159 (Or. 2016).
“We cite and quote the current version of the statute, ORS 419B.476 (2015), throughout this opinion because the changes effected by the 2015 amendment do not affect our analysis.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. L., 379 P.3d 741 (Marion Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016).
“ORS 419B.476(2), (4), (5). After *680 the hearing, the juvenile court must memorialize the child’s permanency plan and any other required findings in a final order.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(4)(d) — 2 cases
Dept. of Human Servs. v. W. C. T., 501 P.3d 44 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“Instead, those subsections of ORS 419B.476 show that the several statutes are related or complimentary.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. S. J. M., 388 P.3d 417 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“This case requires us to consider whether, before changing a child’s permanency plan from reunification with parent to adoption under ORS 419B.476, a juvenile court must first determine, under ORS 419B.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(4)(e) — 2 cases
Dep't of Human Servs. v. S. J. M., 388 P.3d 417 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“This case requires us to consider whether, before changing a child’s permanency plan from reunification with parent to adoption under ORS 419B.476, a juvenile court must first determine, under ORS 419B.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(4)(f) — 2 cases
Dep't of Human Servs. v. S. J. M., 388 P.3d 417 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“This case requires us to consider whether, before changing a child’s permanency plan from reunification with parent to adoption under ORS 419B.476, a juvenile court must first determine, under ORS 419B.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(4)(g) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(5) — 64 cases
Dep't of Human Servs. v. S. J. M., 388 P.3d 417 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“This case requires us to consider whether, before changing a child’s permanency plan from reunification with parent to adoption under ORS 419B.476, a juvenile court must first determine, under ORS 419B.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. L., 369 P.3d 1159 (Or. 2016).
“We cite and quote the current version of the statute, ORS 419B.476 (2015), throughout this opinion because the changes effected by the 2015 amendment do not affect our analysis.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(5)(a) — 21 cases
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. R., 282 P.3d 969 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“ORS 419B.476. The juvenile court determined that the Department of Human Services (DHS) provided reasonable services to both parents but that the parents had not made sufficient progress to allow the child to safely return home.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. C. A., 283 P.3d 956 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“476(4)(c) authorizes the court during any permanency hearing to determine that further efforts will make it possible for the ward to safely return home within a reasonable time and, in such cases, to “order that the parents participate in specific services for a specific period…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(5)(b) — 19 cases
Dep't of Human Servs. v. S. J. M., 388 P.3d 417 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“This case requires us to consider whether, before changing a child’s permanency plan from reunification with parent to adoption under ORS 419B.476, a juvenile court must first determine, under ORS 419B.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(5)(b)(A) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(5)(b)(B) — 11 cases
Dept. of Human Servs. v. C. H., 373 Or. 26 (Or. 2024).
“, 372 Or 133 , 145, 546 P3d 255 (2024), ORS 419B.476 governs the conduct of permanency hearings and changes to permanency plans.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. R., 282 P.3d 969 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“ORS 419B.476. The juvenile court determined that the Department of Human Services (DHS) provided reasonable services to both parents but that the parents had not made sufficient progress to allow the child to safely return home.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. C. L., 295 P.3d 72 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“ORS 419B.476(2)(a). 5 The court also determined that there was a compelling reason, documented *209 by DHS, why it would not be in B’s best interest to return home.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(5)(b)(C) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(5)(b)(D) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(5)(b)(E) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(5)(c) — 31 cases
Dep't of Human Servs. v. S.J.M. (In re L.B.M.), 430 P.3d 1021 (Or. 2018).
“The latter statute requires DHS to file a petition to terminate parental rights in certain circumstances including, as relevant here, when a child "has been in substitute care under the responsibility of [DHS] for 15 of the most recent 22 months.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. S. J. M., 388 P.3d 417 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“This case requires us to consider whether, before changing a child’s permanency plan from reunification with parent to adoption under ORS 419B.476, a juvenile court must first determine, under ORS 419B.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. W. C. T., 501 P.3d 44 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“Instead, those subsections of ORS 419B.476 show that the several statutes are related or complimentary.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(5)(d) — 57 cases
Dep't of Human Servs. v. S.J.M. (In re L.B.M.), 430 P.3d 1021 (Or. 2018).
“The latter statute requires DHS to file a petition to terminate parental rights in certain circumstances including, as relevant here, when a child "has been in substitute care under the responsibility of [DHS] for 15 of the most recent 22 months.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. S. J. M., 388 P.3d 417 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“This case requires us to consider whether, before changing a child’s permanency plan from reunification with parent to adoption under ORS 419B.476, a juvenile court must first determine, under ORS 419B.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. C. H., 373 Or. 26 (Or. 2024).
“, 372 Or 133 , 145, 546 P3d 255 (2024), ORS 419B.476 governs the conduct of permanency hearings and changes to permanency plans.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T.L., 403 P.3d 488 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“Changes to permanency plans are governed by ORS 419B.476. As relevant here, ORS 419B.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(5)(e) — 9 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(5)(f) — 15 cases
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. C. A., 283 P.3d 956 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“476(4)(c) authorizes the court during any permanency hearing to determine that further efforts will make it possible for the ward to safely return home within a reasonable time and, in such cases, to “order that the parents participate in specific services for a specific period…”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. C. L., 295 P.3d 72 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“ORS 419B.476(2)(a). 5 The court also determined that there was a compelling reason, documented *209 by DHS, why it would not be in B’s best interest to return home.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. R., 282 P.3d 969 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“ORS 419B.476. The juvenile court determined that the Department of Human Services (DHS) provided reasonable services to both parents but that the parents had not made sufficient progress to allow the child to safely return home.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(5)(g) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(5)(h) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(5)(k) — 6 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(5)(k)(A) — 4 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(5)(k)(B) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(5)(k)(C) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(5)(k)(D) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(6) — 5 cases
Dep't of Human Servs. v. S. J. M., 388 P.3d 417 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“This case requires us to consider whether, before changing a child’s permanency plan from reunification with parent to adoption under ORS 419B.476, a juvenile court must first determine, under ORS 419B.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(6)(1999) — 1 case
Dep't of Human Servs. v. S. J. M., 388 P.3d 417 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“This case requires us to consider whether, before changing a child’s permanency plan from reunification with parent to adoption under ORS 419B.476, a juvenile court must first determine, under ORS 419B.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(7) — 2 cases
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. L., 369 P.3d 1159 (Or. 2016).
“We cite and quote the current version of the statute, ORS 419B.476 (2015), throughout this opinion because the changes effected by the 2015 amendment do not affect our analysis.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(7)(b) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(7)(d) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(7)(d)(A) — 4 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(7)(d)(C) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(8) — 4 cases
Dep't of Human Servs. v. S.J.M. (In re L.B.M.), 430 P.3d 1021 (Or. 2018).
“The latter statute requires DHS to file a petition to terminate parental rights in certain circumstances including, as relevant here, when a child "has been in substitute care under the responsibility of [DHS] for 15 of the most recent 22 months.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. S. J. M., 388 P.3d 417 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“This case requires us to consider whether, before changing a child’s permanency plan from reunification with parent to adoption under ORS 419B.476, a juvenile court must first determine, under ORS 419B.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(9)(a) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(9)(c) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(9)(e) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.476(l) — 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.