Dept. of Human Services v. D. L. H.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED: November 21, 2012 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of A. W., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. D. L. H. and I. K., Appellants. Linn County Circuit Court J060417 Petition Number 10136J ______________________________________________________________________ In the Matter of J. L. W., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. D. L. H., Appellant. Linn County Circuit Court J010086 Petition Number 10137J A149947 James C. Egan, Judge. On appellant-mother's confidential petition for reconsideration filed September 19, 2012; respondent's response to appellant's petition for reconsideration filed October 12, 2012. Opinion filed August 22, 2012. 251 Or App 787, 284 P3d 1233. Megan L. Jacquot for petition. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Christina M. Hutchins, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for response. Before Schuman, Presiding Judge, and Wollheim, Judge, and Nakamoto, Judge. PER CURIAM Reconsideration allowed; former disposition withdrawn; dispositional/permanency judgment as to A (Case No. J060417) reversed and remanded; otherwise affirmed. 1 PER CURIAM 2 Mother petitions for reconsideration of our disposition in this case, which 3 stated, "Dispositional/permanency judgment as to father reversed and remanded; 4 otherwise affirmed." Dept. of Human Services v. D. L. H., 251 Or App 787, 806, 284 5 P3d 1233 (2012). In D. L. H., mother and father separately appealed the combined 6 dispositional and permanency judgment changing the permanency plans of mother's two 7 children, J and A. We concluded that the Department of Human Services (DHS) had 8 made active efforts to reunify A with mother but had failed to make active efforts to 9 reunify A with father. 251 Or App at 804. We then reversed and remanded the judgment 10 "as to father," and we also "otherwise affirmed" the judgment. Mother points out that this 11 had the effect of our affirming a permanency plan of adoption for A while at the same 12 time reversing it so that DHS can make active efforts to reunify A with father. Mother 13 requests that we modify the disposition so that the entire judgment as to A is reversed and 14 remanded. The state agrees with mother that a child can have only one permanency plan 15 implemented at any particular time and that the entire judgment as to A must be reversed 16 and remanded. We, too, agree. 17 Following a permanency hearing, the court's order must include a 18 "determination of the permanency plan for the ward." ORS 419B.476(5)(b). 19 "Permanency plan," as used in ORS 419B.476, specifically refers to a singular plan for 20 the child, rather than a plan for each parent. See also OAR 413-040-0005(14) (defining a 21 permanency plan as "a written course of action for achieving safe and lasting family 1 1 resources for the child," suggesting one active permanency plan at a time); ORS 2 419B.343(2)(b) (when the case plan is reunification, DHS shall include a concurrent 3 permanency plan "to be implemented" if the parent does not make the changes necessary 4 for the child to return home safely within a reasonable time). Accordingly, we allow the 5 petition and modify the disposition so that the dispositional/permanency judgment 6 changing the permanency plan for A to adoption is reversed and remanded. 7 Reconsideration allowed; former disposition withdrawn; 8 dispositional/permanency judgment as to A (Case No. J060417) reversed and remanded; 9 otherwise affirmed. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
