Juvenile Code: Dependency

ORS 419B.340
Reasonable or active efforts determination

(1)

If the court awards custody to the Department of Human Services, the court shall include in the disposition order a determination whether the department has made reasonable efforts or, if the Indian Child Welfare Act applies, active efforts to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the ward from the home. If the ward has been removed prior to the entry of the order, the order shall also include a determination whether the department has made reasonable or active efforts to make it possible for the ward to safely return home. In making the determination under this subsection, the court shall consider the ward’s health and safety the paramount concerns.

(2)

In support of its determination whether reasonable or active efforts have been made by the department, the court shall enter a brief description of what preventive and reunification efforts were made and why further efforts could or could not have prevented or shortened the separation of the family.

(3)

When the first contact with the family has occurred during an emergency in which the ward could not remain without jeopardy at home even with reasonable services being provided, the department shall be considered to have made reasonable or active efforts to prevent or eliminate the need for removal.

(4)

When the court finds that preventive or reunification efforts have not been reasonable or active, but further preventive or reunification efforts could not permit the ward to remain without jeopardy at home, the court may authorize or continue the removal of the ward.

(5)

If a court determines that one of the following circumstances exist, the juvenile court may make a finding that the department is not required to make reasonable efforts to make it possible for the ward to safely return home:

(a)

Aggravated circumstances including, but not limited to, the following:

(A)

The parent by abuse or neglect has caused the death of any child;

(B)

The parent has attempted, solicited or conspired, as described in ORS 161.405 (“Attempt” described), 161.435 (Solicitation) or 161.450 (“Criminal conspiracy” described) or under comparable laws of any jurisdiction, to cause the death of any child;

(C)

The parent by abuse or neglect has caused serious physical injury to any child;

(D)

The parent has subjected any child to rape, sodomy or sexual abuse;

(E)

The parent has subjected any child to intentional starvation or torture;

(F)

The parent has abandoned the ward as described in ORS 419B.100 (Jurisdiction) (1)(e); or

(G)

The parent has unlawfully caused the death of the other parent of the ward;

(b)

The parent has been convicted in any jurisdiction of one of the following crimes:

(A)

Murder of another child of the parent, which murder would have been an offense under 18 U.S.C. 1111(a);

(B)

Manslaughter in any degree of another child of the parent, which manslaughter would have been an offense under 18 U.S.C. 1112(a);

(C)

Aiding, abetting, attempting, conspiring or soliciting to commit an offense described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of this paragraph; or

(D)

Felony assault that results in serious physical injury to the ward or another child of the parent; or

(c)

The parent’s rights to another child have been terminated involuntarily.

(6)

If, pursuant to a determination under subsection (5) of this section, the juvenile court makes a finding that the department is not required to make reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the ward from the home or to make it possible for the ward to safely return home, and the department determines that it will not make such efforts, the court shall conduct a permanency hearing as provided in ORS 419B.470 (Permanency hearing) no later than 30 days after the judicial finding under subsection (5) of this section.

(7)

When an Indian child is involved, the department must satisfy the court that active efforts have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that these efforts have proven unsuccessful. Foster care placement may not be ordered in a proceeding in the absence of a determination, supported by clear and convincing evidence, including the testimony of expert witnesses, that the continued custody of the Indian child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical injury to the Indian child. [1993 c.33 §109; 1993 c.546 §124; 1999 c.859 §11; 2001 c.686 §14; 2003 c.396 §58]
§§ 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

Notes of Decisions

In determining whether state efforts to assist parents were reasonable and adequate, consideration is given to services provided both before and immediately after state took custody. State ex rel State Office for Services to Children and Families v. Frazier, 152 Or App 568, 955 P2d 272 (1998), Sup Ct review denied

Aggravated circumstances that relieve Department of Human Services from further reasonable reunification efforts include intentional or nonintentional actions and conditions producing serious direct or indirect harm or detriment to subject or other child. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Risland, 183 Or App 293, 51 P3d 697 (2002)

Where parent is incarcerated for crime that is not listed, and incarceration constitutes aggravated circumstance, incarceration may be basis for excusing Department of Human Services from making reasonable efforts to reunify family. State ex rel Juvenile Department v. Williams, 204 Or App 496, 130 P3d 801 (2006)

Incarceration of parent, without more, does not excuse Department of Human Services from making reasonable efforts to reunify family. State ex rel Juvenile Department v. Williams, 204 Or App 496, 130 P3d 801 (2006)

At dispositional stage, juvenile court must assess for each parent, individually, reasonableness of efforts of Department of Human Services to prevent or eliminate need for removal of child from home. Department of Human Services v. J.F.D., 255 Or App 742, 298 P3d 653 (2013)

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)

Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021

REMOVE ADS