419B.340 Reasonable or active efforts determination.
- (1) If the court awards custody to the Department of Human Services, the court shall include in the disposition order a determination whether the department has made reasonable efforts or, if the Indian Child Welfare Act applies, active efforts to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the ward from the home. If the ward has been removed prior to the entry of the order, the order shall also include a determination whether the department has made reasonable or active efforts to make it possible for the ward to safely return home. In making the determination under this subsection, the court shall consider the ward’s health and safety the paramount concerns.
- (2) In support of its determination whether reasonable or active efforts have been made by the department, the court shall enter a brief description of what preventive and reunification efforts were made and why further efforts could or could not have prevented or shortened the separation of the family.
- (3) When the first contact with the family has occurred during an emergency in which the ward could not remain without jeopardy at home even with reasonable services being provided, the department shall be considered to have made reasonable or active efforts to prevent or eliminate the need for removal.
- (4) When the court finds that preventive or reunification efforts have not been reasonable or active, but further preventive or reunification efforts could not permit the ward to remain without jeopardy at home, the court may authorize or continue the removal of the ward.
- (5) If a court determines that one of the following circumstances exist, the juvenile court may make a finding that the department is not required to make reasonable efforts to make it possible for the ward to safely return home:
- (a) Aggravated circumstances including, but not limited to, the following:
- (A) The parent by abuse or neglect has caused the death of any child;
- (B) The parent has attempted, solicited or conspired, as described in ORS 161.405, 161.435 or 161.450 or under comparable laws of any jurisdiction, to cause the death of any child;
- (C) The parent by abuse or neglect has caused serious physical injury to any child;
- (D) The parent has subjected any child to rape, sodomy or sexual abuse;
- (E) The parent has subjected any child to intentional starvation or torture;
- (F) The parent has abandoned the ward as described in ORS 419B.100 (1)(e); or
- (G) The parent has unlawfully caused the death of the other parent of the ward;
- (b) The parent has been convicted in any jurisdiction of one of the following crimes:
- (A) Murder of another child of the parent, which murder would have been an offense under 18 U.S.C. 1111(a);
- (B) Manslaughter in any degree of another child of the parent, which manslaughter would have been an offense under 18 U.S.C. 1112(a);
- (C) Aiding, abetting, attempting, conspiring or soliciting to commit an offense described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of this paragraph; or
- (D) Felony assault that results in serious physical injury to the ward or another child of the parent; or
- (c) The parent’s rights to another child have been terminated involuntarily.
- (6) If, pursuant to a determination under subsection (5) of this section, the juvenile court makes a finding that the department is not required to make reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the ward from the home or to make it possible for the ward to safely return home, and the department determines that it will not make such efforts, the court shall conduct a permanency hearing as provided in ORS 419B.470 no later than 30 days after the judicial finding under subsection (5) of this section.
- (7) When an Indian child is involved, the department must satisfy the court that active efforts have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that these efforts have proven unsuccessful. Foster care placement may not be ordered in a proceeding in the absence of a determination, supported by clear and convincing evidence, including the testimony of expert witnesses, that the continued custody of the Indian child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical injury to the Indian child.
[1993 c.33 §109; 1993 c.546 §124; 1999 c.859 §11; 2001 c.686 §14; 2003 c.396 §58]
- State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. C.D.J., 229. Or App 160 2009 Jackson County
- Dept. of Human Services v. D.D., 238 Or App 134, 2010 Lane County
- Dept. of Human Services v. D.M.T., 239 Or App 127 2010, rev den, 349 Or 654 (2011) Linn County
- Dept. of Human Services v. G.D.W., 246 Or App 66 2011 Lincoln County
- Dept. of Human Services v. G.E. II, 243 Or App 471 2011 Douglas County
- State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. J.L.M., 220 Or App. 93 2008 Multnomah County
- State ex rel Dept. of Human Services v. Keeton, 205 Or App 570, 2006 Klamath County
- State v. N.L., 237 Or App 133, 2010 Yamhill County
- Dept. of Human Services v. N.L., ____ Or App ____, 2011 Yamhill County
- State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Risland, 183 Or App 293 2002 Benton County
- State ex rel Dept. of Human Services v. Shugars II, 208 Or App 694 Klamath County
- State ex rel Dept. of Human Services v. S.P.B., 218 Or App 97 2008 Washington County
- State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Vockrodt, 147 Or App 4 1997 Washington County
- State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Williams, 204 Or App 496 2006 Coos County