In the Matter of R. R. P., a Child.
M. D. P. and K. A. H., Appellants. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, In the Matter of M. R. P., Jr., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent,
M. D. P. and K. A. H., Appellants.
and submitted October 12, 2016
County Circuit Court 14451J; Petition Number 14451J01,
14452J01 Valeri L. Love, Judge.
Fitch argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant K.
Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section,
and Amelia Andersen, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public
Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant M. D. P.
Or.App. 708] Inge D. Wells, Assistant Attorney General,
argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Ellen F.
Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor
General, and Jonathan N. Schildt, Assistant Attorney General.
Duncan, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and Garrett,
appeal the juvenile court's judgments that changed the
permanency plans for their two children from reunification to
guardianship. Parents assert that the juvenile court erred in
concluding that, despite the Department of Human
Services' reasonable efforts to effect reunification,
parents had not made sufficient progress for the children to
safely return home.
is sufficient evidence in the record to support the juvenile
court's conclusion that the parents had not made
sufficient process for reunification at the time of the
Or.App. 709] DUNCAN, P. J.
these consolidated juvenile dependency cases, parents appeal
the juvenile court's judgments that changed the
permanency plans for their two children, R and M, from
reunification to guardianship. Parents assert that the
juvenile court erred in concluding that, despite the
Department of Human Services' (DHS) reasonable efforts to
effect reunification, parents had not made sufficient
progress for the children to safely return home. We affirm.
do not request that we exercise our discretion to review this
case de novo, and we find no reason to do so.
See ORAP 5.4O(8)(c) ("The Court of Appeals will
exercise its discretion to try the cause anew on the record
or to make one or more factual findings anew on the record
only in exceptional cases."). Thus, we "view the
evidence, as supplemented and buttressed by permissible
derivative inferences, in the light most favorable to the
[juvenile] 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); Dept. of Human
Services v. G. N., 263 Or.App. 287, 294, 328 P.3d 728,
rev den, 356 Or. 638 (2014) (whether a parent's
progress was sufficient is a legal conclusion that we review
for errors of law).
begin with a brief history of DHS's involvement with the
family. In October 2014, the juvenile court took jurisdiction
over the children based on parents' admissions that their
"chaotic lifestyle and residential instability interfere
with [their] ability to safely parent [, ]" that father
had "exposed the [children] to domestic discord [,
]" and that mother "was subjected to domestic
discord" by father and was "unable or unwilling to
protect the [children] from exposure to father's
discord." The children were placed in relative foster
care with their paternal grandmother (grandmother).
juvenile court ordered parents to (1) complete domestic
violence counseling and demonstrate a "violence-free
lifestyle"; (2) complete a psychological evaluation and
follow the service recommendations from their evaluators; (3)
complete a parent training program and [285 Or.App. 710]