419B.645
Active efforts.
(1) As used in this section, “active efforts” means efforts that are
affirmative, active, thorough, timely and intended to maintain or reunite an
Indian child with the Indian child’s family.
(2) If there is
reason to know that a child in a proceeding under ORS 109.266 to 109.410 or ORS
chapter 419B is an Indian child and active efforts are required, the court must
determine whether active efforts have been made to prevent the breakup of the family
or to reunite the family.
(3) Active
efforts require a higher standard of conduct than reasonable efforts.
(4) Active
efforts must:
(a) Be documented
in detail in writing and on the record;
(b) If the child
is alleged to be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under ORS
419B.100, include assisting the Indian child’s parent or parents or Indian
custodian through the steps of a case plan and with accessing or developing the
resources necessary to satisfy the case plan;
(c) Include
providing assistance in a manner consistent with the prevailing social and
cultural standards and way of life of the Indian child’s tribe;
(d) Be conducted
in partnership with the Indian child and the Indian child’s parents, extended
family members, Indian custodians and tribe; and
(e) Be tailored
to the facts and circumstances of the case.
(5) Active
efforts may include, as applicable, the following:
(a) Conducting a
comprehensive assessment of the circumstances of the Indian child’s family,
with a focus on reunification as the most desirable goal;
(b) Identifying
appropriate services and helping the Indian child’s parents overcome barriers
to reunification, including actively assisting the parents in obtaining the
identified services;
(c) Identifying,
notifying and inviting representatives of the Indian child’s tribe to
participate in providing support and services to the Indian child’s family and
in family team meetings, permanency planning, resolution of placement issues,
reviews or other case management related meetings;
(d) Conducting or
causing to be conducted a diligent search for the Indian child’s extended
family members, contacting and consulting with the Indian child’s extended
family members and adult relatives to provide family structure and support for
the Indian child and the Indian child’s parents;
(e) Offering and
employing culturally appropriate family preservation strategies and
facilitating the use of remedial and rehabilitative services provided by the
Indian child’s tribe;
(f) Taking steps
to keep the Indian child and the Indian child’s siblings together whenever
possible;
(g) Supporting
regular visits with the Indian child’s parent or Indian custodian in the most
natural setting possible, as well as trial home visits during any period of
removal, consistent with the need to ensure the health, safety and welfare of
the Indian child;
(h) Identifying
community resources, including housing, financial assistance, employment
training, transportation, mental health, health care, substance abuse
prevention and treatment, parent training, transportation and peer support
services and actively assisting the Indian child’s parents or, when
appropriate, the Indian child’s extended family members, in utilizing and
accessing those resources;
(i) Monitoring
progress and participation of the Indian child’s parents, Indian custodian or
extended family members in the services as described in paragraphs (b), (c),
(e) and (h) of this subsection;
(j) Considering
alternative options to address the needs of the Indian child’s parents and,
where appropriate, the Indian child’s extended family members, if the services
as described in paragraphs (b), (c), (e) and (h) of this subsection are not
available;
(k) Providing
post-reunification services and monitoring while the Indian child is within the
juvenile court’s jurisdiction; and
(L) Any other
efforts that are appropriate to the Indian child’s circumstances. [2020 s.s.1
c.14 §18; 2021 c.398 §20]
Note: See note under 419B.600.
Notes of Decisions
Dept. of Human Servs. v. A. C. S. G., 328 Or. App. 191 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 9× “639; ORS 419B.645; 25 USC § 1912 (a), (d). We thus refer to those statutes as ICWA/ ORICWA throughout this opinion and point out any differences if those are rele- vant to our analysis.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. L. B., 325 Or. App. 176 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “476(7)(b). “Active efforts” are efforts that are “affirmative, active, thorough, timely and intended to maintain or reunite an Indian child with the Indian child’s family.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. M. G. J., 326 Or. App. 426 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 3× “476(2)(a) provides: “If the case plan at the time of the hearing is to reunify the family, [the court shall] determine whether [DHS] has made reasonable efforts or, if the ward is an Indian child, active efforts as described in ORS 419B.645 to make it pos- sible for the ward to…”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. M. G. J., 374 Or. 228 (Or. 2025).
· cites it 2× “340 (determination whether DHS has made “active efforts * * * to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the ward from the home”); see also ORS 419B.645 (defining “active efforts”).”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. A. S., 338 Or. App. 183 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“an appropriate permanent plan for the child and the Indian child’s tribe consents to the tribal customary adoption; or “(D) The court or local citizen review board in a prior hearing or review determined that while the case plan was to reunify the family the department did not…”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. J. D. L., 341 Or. App. 114 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 4× “476(5)(k)(A) (requiring “active efforts” on the part of ODHS to facilitate an Indian child’s safe return home); ORS 419B.645 (defining “active efforts”).”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. M. G. J., 374 Or. 228 (Or. 2025).
· cites it 2× “Second, applying the clear and convincing evi- dence standard applicable in ORICWA cases, the juvenile prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the ward from the home”); see also ORS 419B.645 (defining “active efforts”).”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. A. C. S. G. (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 9× “639; ORS 419B.645; 25 USC § 1912 (a), (d). We thus refer to those statutes as ICWA/ ORICWA throughout this opinion and point out any differences if those are rele- vant to our analysis.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. A. S., 338 Or. App. 183 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“an appropriate permanent plan for the child and the Indian child’s tribe consents to the tribal customary adoption; or “(D) The court or local citizen review board in a prior hearing or review determined that while the case plan was to reunify the family the department did not…”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. J. D. L., 341 Or. App. 114 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 4× “476(5)(k)(A) (requiring “active efforts” on the part of ODHS to facilitate an Indian child’s safe return home); ORS 419B.645 (defining “active efforts”).”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. M. N. B., 346 Or. App. 440 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
“Considering the totality of the circumstances, we readily determine that ODHS made “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…”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. M. G. J. (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 3× “476(2)(a) provides: “If the case plan at the time of the hearing is to reunify the family, [the court shall] determine whether [DHS] has made reasonable efforts or, if the ward is an Indian child, active efforts as described in ORS 419B.645 to make it pos- sible for the ward to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.645(1) — 8 cases
Dept. of Human Servs. v. L. B., 325 Or. App. 176 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“476(7)(b). “Active efforts” are efforts that are “affirmative, active, thorough, timely and intended to maintain or reunite an Indian child with the Indian child’s family.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. M. G. J., 326 Or. App. 426 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“476(2)(a) provides: “If the case plan at the time of the hearing is to reunify the family, [the court shall] determine whether [DHS] has made reasonable efforts or, if the ward is an Indian child, active efforts as described in ORS 419B.645 to make it pos- sible for the ward to…”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. M. G. J., 374 Or. 228 (Or. 2025).
“340 (determination whether DHS has made “active efforts * * * to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the ward from the home”); see also ORS 419B.645 (defining “active efforts”).”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. M. G. J., 374 Or. 228 (Or. 2025).
“Second, applying the clear and convincing evi- dence standard applicable in ORICWA cases, the juvenile prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the ward from the home”); see also ORS 419B.645 (defining “active efforts”).”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. M. G. J. (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“476(2)(a) provides: “If the case plan at the time of the hearing is to reunify the family, [the court shall] determine whether [DHS] has made reasonable efforts or, if the ward is an Indian child, active efforts as described in ORS 419B.645 to make it pos- sible for the ward to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.645(2) — 2 cases
Dept. of Human Servs. v. A. C. S. G., 328 Or. App. 191 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“639; ORS 419B.645; 25 USC § 1912 (a), (d). We thus refer to those statutes as ICWA/ ORICWA throughout this opinion and point out any differences if those are rele- vant to our analysis.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. A. C. S. G. (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“639; ORS 419B.645; 25 USC § 1912 (a), (d). We thus refer to those statutes as ICWA/ ORICWA throughout this opinion and point out any differences if those are rele- vant to our analysis.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.645(3) — 5 cases
Dept. of Human Servs. v. L. B., 325 Or. App. 176 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“476(7)(b). “Active efforts” are efforts that are “affirmative, active, thorough, timely and intended to maintain or reunite an Indian child with the Indian child’s family.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. J. D. L., 341 Or. App. 114 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“476(5)(k)(A) (requiring “active efforts” on the part of ODHS to facilitate an Indian child’s safe return home); ORS 419B.645 (defining “active efforts”).”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. J. D. L., 341 Or. App. 114 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“476(5)(k)(A) (requiring “active efforts” on the part of ODHS to facilitate an Indian child’s safe return home); ORS 419B.645 (defining “active efforts”).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.645(4) — 4 cases
Dept. of Human Servs. v. A. C. S. G., 328 Or. App. 191 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“639; ORS 419B.645; 25 USC § 1912 (a), (d). We thus refer to those statutes as ICWA/ ORICWA throughout this opinion and point out any differences if those are rele- vant to our analysis.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. J. D. L., 341 Or. App. 114 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“476(5)(k)(A) (requiring “active efforts” on the part of ODHS to facilitate an Indian child’s safe return home); ORS 419B.645 (defining “active efforts”).”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. A. C. S. G. (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“639; ORS 419B.645; 25 USC § 1912 (a), (d). We thus refer to those statutes as ICWA/ ORICWA throughout this opinion and point out any differences if those are rele- vant to our analysis.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. J. D. L., 341 Or. App. 114 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“476(5)(k)(A) (requiring “active efforts” on the part of ODHS to facilitate an Indian child’s safe return home); ORS 419B.645 (defining “active efforts”).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.645(4)(b) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.645(4)(e) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.645(5) — 2 cases
Dept. of Human Servs. v. M. G. J., 326 Or. App. 426 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“476(2)(a) provides: “If the case plan at the time of the hearing is to reunify the family, [the court shall] determine whether [DHS] has made reasonable efforts or, if the ward is an Indian child, active efforts as described in ORS 419B.645 to make it pos- sible for the ward to…”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. M. G. J. (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“476(2)(a) provides: “If the case plan at the time of the hearing is to reunify the family, [the court shall] determine whether [DHS] has made reasonable efforts or, if the ward is an Indian child, active efforts as described in ORS 419B.645 to make it pos- sible for the ward to…”
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.