ORS 419B.349
Court authority to review placement or proposed placement


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 (Commitment to custody of Department of Human Services) (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.


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 (Circumstances requiring reports) (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.500 to 419B.524

Notes of Decisions

Under Former Similar Statutes

Due process does not require the appointment of “independent counsel” to represent the child in every adoption or termination of parental rights proceeding. F. v. C., 24 Or App 601, 547 P2d 175 (1976)

When second termination of parental rights proceeding was not itself barred, proof was not limited by res judicata or collateral estoppel principles to facts or evidence which was not considered in or which came in to being after first proceeding. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Newman, 49 Or App 221, 619 P2d 901 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

Chapter 419B

Notes of Decisions

Due process rights of parents are always implicated in construction and application of provisions of this chapter. Department of Human Services v. J.R.F., 351 Or 570, 273 P3d 87 (2012)

Last accessed
May. 15, 2020