Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re K.B.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

April 22, 2015

In the Matter of K. B., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
R. S., Appellant

Submitted February 10, 2015.

J120131. Washington County Circuit Court, Petition Number 01J120131. Ricardo J. Menchaca, Judge.

Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Valerie Colas, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Cecil Reniche-Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, waived appearance for respondent.

Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and Garrett, Judge.

OPINION

Page 1165

[270 Or.App. 523] DEVORE, J.

In this juvenile dependency case, mother appeals a permanency judgment changing her child's permanency plan from reunification to " another planned permanent living arrangement" (APPLA)--here, permanent foster care.[1] OAR 413-070-0532(1) (defining types of APPLA). Mother contends that the juvenile court's findings were inconsistent, and that, even if the findings are viewed as consistent, the juvenile court erred in concluding that it was not safe for her child to return to her care. We affirm.

Mother does not request that we exercise our discretion to conduct de novo review, and we find no reason to do so. See

Page 1166

ORAP 5.40(8)(c). Consequently, we " view the evidence, as supplemented and buttressed by permissible derivative inferences, in the light most favorable to the trial court's disposition and assess whether, when so viewed, the record was legally sufficient to permit that outcome." Dept. of Human Services v. N. P., 257 Or.App. 633, 639, 307 P.3d 444 (2013).

Mother's fourteen-year-old son, K, was removed from her care in February 2012, due to her inability to meet a DHS safety plan. In April 2012, the juvenile court took jurisdiction based on mother's admissions that she had " failed to provide adequate supervision for [K] on one or more occasion by leaving [K] unsupervised even after [K] has made statements of wanting to harm himself," and that she " has a history of choosing violent and/or unsafe partners, which places [K] at risk of harm." Mother later admitted to an additional basis of jurisdiction--that is, that she " lacks parenting skills necessary to understand the child's behavioral needs and mental health needs." Thereafter, K lived in numerous foster placements and continued to experience significant mental health problems. He engaged in self-harming behavior, threatened and attempted to commit [270 Or.App. 524] suicide on multiple occasions, struggled with depression and anxiety, and exhibited other severe behavioral difficulties. He was eventually placed with a foster family with whom he began making progress. K has expressed his desire to remain permanently with that foster family.

On July 28, 2014, the juvenile court held a permanency hearing. At the time, K was thirteen years old, had lived with his foster family for one and one-half years, and had participated in a number of therapeutic services and programs. K continued exhibiting self-harming behavior and emotional difficulties, although " his outbursts [had] lessened in intensity and frequency." He and mother had maintained contact through telephone calls as well as structured face-to-face visits. His counsel emphasized that the juvenile case was " about two and a half years old" and that K " would like to have a little bit more permanency in his life and knowing that he isn't at the edge of going home at any given time * * * ." Mother responded that she had been making progress toward reunification and that she needed more time, because she wanted reunification " to be careful and methodical, not rushed." [2]

At the hearing, the evidence generally indicated that mother had engaged in a number of efforts pursuant to DHS's action plan and had made individual progress toward DHS's parenting goals. According to DHS's court report dated July 22, 2014, mother participated in family therapy with K, had an unsupervised visit with him, met weekly with an Options employee to develop parenting skills, completed a collaborative problem solving class, was attempting to enroll in an additional program, and was continuing with her alcohol treatment. The report detailed that mother " attends all WRAP meetings, family therapy, and additional services ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.