- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Family Law
- Date Filed: 04-07-2021
- Case #: A173475
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Powers, J. for the Court; Shorr, J., & Ortega, P.J.
- Full Text Opinion
Father appealed a judgement changing the permanency plan for his daughter from reunification to adoption. Father argued that the juvenile court erred by considering extrinsic facts because the permanency plan did not explicitly state nor fairly imply his sex offender treatment. To change a permanency plan from reunification to adoption, “the proponent of the change must prove that, despite DHS’s reasonable efforts to reunify the parent with his or her child, the parent has not made sufficient progress for the ward to safely return home.” Dept. of Human Services v. C. E., 288 Or App 649, 656, 406 P3d 211 (2017) (internal quotation marks omitted); ORS 419B.476(2)(a). DHS sought to change the permanency plan for daughter from a reunification plan to an adoption plan because Father failed to complete his sex offender treatment, which addressed his mental health issues. The Court of Appeals agreed with Father, reasoning that considering factors outside the scope of the permanency plan would result in the juvenile court engaging in improper procedures. Thus, Father did not receive adequate notice of the condition imposed to complete sex offender treatment. Reversed and remanded.