## Facts

- A juvenile court took dependency jurisdiction over M.M.R. in December 2017 and placed the child in foster care.
- Jurisdiction was based on the father’s admission that his chaotic relationship with the mother interfered with his ability to safely parent and protect the child from risks associated with the mother.
- The mother presented safety concerns including violence toward the father, substance abuse, mental-health issues, criminal behavior, and an unstable lifestyle.
- DHS provided largely generic services (e.g., bus passes, cell-phone minutes) and made an unexplained referral to “Womenspace”; a later caseworker could not explain the referral’s purpose or available programming.
- The father independently obtained a motorhome to meet housing expectations, completed a psychological evaluation and parenting training, maintained consistent appropriate visits, and had a strong bond with the child.
- The father continued a relationship with the mother; DHS did not clearly state that ending the relationship was required for reunification or identify specific behavioral changes needed to address the adjudicated safety basis.

## Issues

1. Whether DHS proved it made reasonable efforts to reunify the father and child by providing services and guidance aimed at ameliorating the adjudicated bases for jurisdiction.
2. Whether, in light of DHS’s efforts and the father’s actions, the juvenile court could find the father had not made sufficient progress and change the permanency plan from reunification to adoption.

## Decision

- The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the permanency judgment and remanded.
- The court held DHS did not satisfy its reasonable-efforts obligation because its efforts were not adequately directed to the adjudicated safety concerns and did not provide clear expectations for necessary change.
- Because DHS failed to prove reasonable efforts, the plan change to adoption could not be sustained on findings of insufficient progress premised on the same unaddressed jurisdictional basis.

## Legal Principles

- DHS must prove “reasonable efforts” by focusing services, guidance, and expectations on ameliorating the adjudicated bases for juvenile-court jurisdiction, not merely offering standard or untailored services.
- Reasonable efforts include communicating clear, case-specific expectations and providing a coherent plan that connects offered services to the precise safety risks that justified jurisdiction.
- “Sufficient progress” at a permanency hearing is evaluated in light of the reunification efforts DHS reasonably provided; deficiencies in DHS’s targeted efforts can undermine a finding of insufficient progress supporting a plan change to adoption.

## Conclusion

The court required DHS to link reunification efforts to the specific jurisdictional safety concerns and to give clear direction about what changes were necessary; absent that showing, a permanency plan change to adoption could not stand.


Dep't of Hum. Servs. v. D. M. R. (In re M. M. R.), 301 Or. App. 436, 455 P.3d 599 (2019)