Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 18, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Dept. of Human Services v. K. M.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

• Citations: 347 Or. App. 893
• Docket Number: A187780
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Disposition: Affirmed.

• Opinion

• Authorities (2)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Disposition

Affirmed.

Combined Opinion

No. 220 March 18, 2026 893

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
STATE OF OREGON

In the Matter of K. L.-A. J.,
a Child.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Respondent,
and
K. L.-A. J.,
Respondent,
v.
K. M.,
Appellant.
Crook County Circuit Court
22JU03382; A187780

Daina A. Vitolins, Judge.
Submitted February 18, 2026.
Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate
Section, and Holly Telerant, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon
Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant.
Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Interim
Solicitor General, and Erica L. Herb, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent Department of Human
Services.
Christa Obold Eshleman and Youth, Rights & Justice
filed the brief for respondent child.
Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, Powers, Judge, and
O’Connor, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Affirmed.
894 Dept. of Human Services v. K. M.

PER CURIAM
In this juvenile dependency case, father appeals a
judgment in which the juvenile court changed the perma-
nency plan for his child, L, who was two years old at the
time of the permanency hearing, from reunification to adop-
tion. In two assignments of error, father challenges the juve-
nile court’s ruling that the Oregon Department of Human
Services (ODHS) made reasonable efforts to reunify child
with mother and its decision to change the child’s plan from
reunification to adoption.1 As explained below, we affirm.
Father has not requested that we review de novo,
and we decline to exercise our discretion to do so.2 We are
therefore bound by the juvenile court’s express and implied
factual findings as to what efforts ODHS made, so long
as there is evidence in the record to support them. Dept.
of Human Services v. C. H., 373 Or 26, 48-49, 559 P3d 395
(2024). Whether those efforts qualify as “reasonable” is a
legal conclusion that we review for errors of law. Id. at 48-49.
Before a court may change a child’s permanency
plan away from reunification, one factor that ODHS must
prove is that it made reasonable efforts to make it possible
for the child to be reunified with his or her parent. Dept. of
Human Services v. K. G. T., 306 Or App 368, 374, 473 P3d
131 (2020). Courts evaluate ODHS’s efforts to reunify a par-
ent and child “in light of the bases for [dependency] jurisdic-
tion identified in the juvenile court’s judgment.” C. H., 373
Or at 50. Reunification efforts are reasonable when, under
the totality of the circumstances, they “give parents a full
and fair opportunity to remediate the bases for jurisdiction
to become at least minimally adequate parents.” Id.
On appeal, father argues that ODHS did not under-
take reasonable efforts to ameliorate the jurisdictional
1
On appeal, father does not contest the efforts of ODHS with respect to him
or that he failed to make sufficient progress for L to be safely returned to his care.
2
See ORS 19.415(3)(b) (“Upon an appeal in an equitable action or proceeding
other than an appeal from a judgment in a proceeding for the termination of
parental rights, the Court of Appeals, acting in its sole discretion, may try the
cause anew upon the record or make one or more factual findings anew upon
the record.”); ORAP 5.40(8)(c) (providing for the exercise of that discretion only
in “exceptional cases”); ORAP 5.40(8)(d) (identifying nonexclusive considerations
that may be relevant to our decision whether to exercise de novo review).
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 347 Or App 893 (2026) 895

bases with respect to mother because the department failed
to help mother access domestic violence treatment, a psycho-
logical evaluation, and inpatient drug treatment. Assuming
that father’s arguments on appeal are adequately pre-
served, which is an issue we do not decide, we conclude that
the record supports the juvenile court’s determination that
ODHS made reasonable efforts to reunify mother with the
child. ODHS referred mother to multiple substance abuse
and mental health services over the course of this case, but
mother did not successfully complete any of those programs.
At least one of the mental health services offered to mother
included domestic violence counseling. Mother has received
recommendations for inpatient substance abuse treatment,
which she did not pursue. The juvenile court permissibly
determined that ODHS was not required to provide addi-
tional services in order for its efforts to be reasonable. The
record is legally sufficient to support the court’s reasonable-
efforts determination and to permit the court to change the
permanency plan to adoption.
Affirmed.