Transcript www.publications.ojd.state.or.us

The History and Purpose of the Review
RESOURCE GUIDELINES -Improving Court Practice in
Child Abuse and Neglect Cases
published by the National Council of Juvenile and
Family Court Judges
Reno, Nevada
Permanency for Children
Permanent homes, permanency, for
children is the fundamental principle
behind the Adoption Assistance and Child
Welfare Act of 1980.
 Statutory provisions designed to achieve
permanency are based on several widely
accepted principles of child
development.

Permanency for Children
Not enough to protect children from
immediate harm
 Emotional impact of separation must be
taken into account
 Ensure that children are brought up in
stable, permanent families, rather than in
temporary and unstable foster placements

Stable Caregivers
Children need secure and uninterrupted
emotional relationships with adults who
are responsible for their care.
 Repeatedly disrupted placements and
relationships can interfere with a child’s
ability to form close emotional
relationships after reaching maturity.

Permanent Family
Foster care, with its inherent instability
and impermanence, can impose great
stress on a child
 Weathering the normal situational
changes of childhood in a permanent
family enables a child to envision a more
secure future

Family Superior to the State
Parents are likely to be capable of making
the best, most timely decisions for a child
 Decision-making concerning a child in
foster care can often be fragmented and
inconsistent

Protecting without Removing
Preventing unnecessary removal helps to
preserve the constitutional right of
families to be free from unwarranted state
interference
 To prevent unnecessary removal, the state
must take strong, affirmative steps to
assist families
 Federal law requires “reasonable efforts”
to prevent the necessity of foster
placement

Reunification
Achieving permanent homes for abused
and neglected children also includes
working toward the reunification of
families
 States must make reasonable efforts to
bring about the safe reunification of
children and their families

Reunification Not Feasible
When reunification is not feasible, the
search for a new, permanent home for the
child supersedes that as a goal
 Federal law makes it clear that permanent
homes are to be arranged within a
reasonable time.

Purpose of the Review
Ensure that cases progress and that
children spend as short a time as possible
in temporary placement
 Keep cases moving toward successful
completion
 Identify inadequacies in the State’s
response

Purpose of the Review
Create incentives for the State to make
decisions concerning the permanent
status of a child
 When the review hearing is challenging
and demanding, greater consideration is
given
 Create a valuable record of the actions
of the parents and the State

Purpose of the Review
Helps a case progress by requiring the
parties to set timetables, take specific
action, and make decisions
 Provide a forum for the parents
 Help assure that a parent’s viewpoint is
considered in case planning

Purpose of the Review
Re-examine long-term case goals and
change any which are no longer
appropriate
 Identify cases in which reunification
should not be the goal because a child
cannot safely be returned home in a timely
fashion

WARNING!
Reviews can malfunction
as a rubber stamp of the
State recommendations
or produce arbitrary
decisions based on
inadequate information.
Issues for Reviews
Case plans failing to clearly specify what
each party must do
 Case plans which fail to adequately
document
 Case plans developed solely by State staff,
without the collaboration of parents or the
child.

Issues for Reviews
When caseloads are high, cases may be
neglected
 If things are going “smoothly”, appropriate
attention may not be paid
 Unnecessarily restricting visits,
accelerating breakdown of the parentchild relationship

Citizen Reviews
“The best alternative or complement to
judicial review is review by panels of
judicially appointed citizen volunteers.”
 “Members of citizen review panels
should be carefully recruited, screened,
trained and supervised by court
personnel.
 “A professional staff person should be
present at all panel reviews.”

Social Security Act
Adoption Assistance and Child
Welfare Act of 1980

Purpose:
 To establish a program of adoption
assistance, strengthen the program of foster
care assistance for needy and dependent
children, and improve the child welfare,
social services, and aid to families with
dependent children programs
Child Welfare Information Gateway
Children’s Bureau/ACYF
Adoption Assistance and Child
Welfare Act of 1980



Required that States make “reasonable
efforts’’ to prevent removal of the child from
the home and return those who have been
removed as soon as possible
Required participating States to establish
reunification and preventive programs for all in
foster care
Required the State to place a child in the least
restrictive setting and, if the child will benefit,
one that is close to the parent’s home
Child Welfare Information Gateway
Children’s Bureau/ACYF
Adoption Assistance and Child
Welfare Act of 1980


Required the court or agency to review the
status of a child in any nonpermanent setting
every 6 months to determine what is in the
best interest of the child, with most emphasis
placed on returning the child home as soon
as possible
Required the court or administrative body to
determine the child’s future status, whether it
is a return to parents, adoption, or continued
foster care, within 18 months after initial
placement into foster care
Child Welfare Information Gateway
Children’s Bureau/ACYF
Adoption and Safe Families Act of
1997

Purpose:
 To promote the adoption of children in foster
care
Child Welfare Information Gateway
Children’s Bureau/ACYF
Adoption and Safe Families Act of
1997

Promoted adoptions:
 Required States to use reasonable efforts to
move eligible foster care children towards
permanent placements
 Promoted adoptions of all special needs
children and ensured health coverage for
adopted special needs children
 Required States to document and report
child-specific adoption efforts
Child Welfare Information Gateway
Children’s Bureau/ACYF
Adoption and Safe Families Act of
1997

Required shorter time limits for making
decisions about permanent placements:
 Required permanency hearings to be held no
later than 12 months after entering foster care
 Required States to initiate termination of
parental rights proceedings after the child has
been in foster care15 of the previous 22 months,
except if not in the best interest of the child, or if
the child is in the care of a relative
Child Welfare Information Gateway
Children’s Bureau/ACYF
Adoption and Safe Families Act of
1997

Clarified “reasonable efforts’’:
 Emphasized children’s health and safety
 Required States to specify situations when
services to prevent foster placement and
reunification of families are not required
Child Welfare Information Gateway
Children’s Bureau/ACYF
Adoption and Safe Families Act of
1997

Clarified “reasonable efforts’’:
 In determining reasonable efforts, the child’s
health and safety shall be the paramount
concern.
 If the court determines that reunification is
not the permanent plan, the court must
determine that reasonable efforts are being
made to secure a permanent home for the
child.
Child Welfare Information Gateway
Children’s Bureau/ACYF
Social Security Act Sec. 471 (a)
(15)
(A) in determining reasonable efforts to be
made with respect to a child, as described
in this paragraph, and in making such
reasonable efforts, the child's health and
safety shall be the paramount concern;
Social Security Act Sec. 471 (a)
(15)
(B) except as provided in subparagraph (D),
reasonable efforts shall be made to
preserve and reunify families—
(i) prior to the placement of a child in foster care,
to prevent or eliminate the need for removing
the child from the child's home; and
(ii) to make it possible for a child to safely return to
the child's home;
Social Security Act Sec. 471 (a)
(15)
(C) if continuation of reasonable efforts of the
type described in subparagraph (B) is
determined to be inconsistent with the
permanency plan for the child, reasonable
efforts shall be made to place the child in a
timely manner in accordance with the
permanency plan (including, if appropriate,
through an interstate placement) and to
complete whatever steps are necessary to
finalize the permanent placement of the
child;
Oregon Revised Statutes
ORS 419A.116 (1)
After reviewing each case, the local citizen
review board shall make written findings and
recommendations with respect to:
(a) Whether reasonable efforts were made prior
to the placement, to prevent or eliminate the
need for removal of the child or ward from
the home;
ORS 419A.116 (1)
(b) If the case plan at the time of the
review is to reunify the family, whether
the Department of Human Services has
made reasonable efforts or, if the Indian
Child Welfare Act applies, active efforts
to make it possible for the child or ward
to safely return home and whether the
parent has made sufficient progress to
make it possible for the child or ward to
safely return home;
ORS 419A.116 (1)
(c) If the case plan at the time of the review is
something other than to reunify the family,
whether the department has made
reasonable efforts to place the child or ward
in a timely manner in accordance with the
case plan, including, if appropriate,
placement of the child or ward through an
interstate placement, and to complete the
steps necessary to finalize the permanent
placement of the child or ward;
ORS 419B.340 (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.
ORS 419B.476 (2)
At a permanency hearing the court shall:
(a) If the case plan at the time of the hearing is
to reunify the family, determine whether the
Department of Human Services has made
reasonable efforts or, if the Indian Child
Welfare Act applies, active efforts to make it
possible for the ward to safely return home…
ORS 419B.476 (2)
(b) If the case plan at the time of the hearing is
something other than to reunify the family,
determine whether the department has
made reasonable efforts to place the ward in
a timely manner in accordance with the plan,
including, if appropriate, reasonable efforts
to place the ward through an interstate
placement, and to complete the steps
necessary to finalize the permanent
placement.
A Deeper Look
Child Welfare Policy Manual
Administration for Children and Families
Definition
Not defined - to do so would be a direct
contradiction of the intent of the law.
 The statute requires that determinations
be made on a case-by-case basis.
 Any definition would either limit the
courts' ability to make determinations on
a case-by-case basis or be so broad as
to be ineffective.

Guidelines
In determining whether reasonable efforts
were made:
(1) Would the child's health or safety have been
compromised had the agency attempted to
maintain him or her at home?
(2) Was the service plan customized to the
individual needs of the family or was it a
standard package of services?
Guidelines
In determining whether reasonable efforts
were made:
(3) Did the agency provide services to ameliorate
factors present in the child or parent, i.e.,
physical, emotional, or psychological, that
would inhibit a parent's ability to maintain the
child safely at home?
(4) Do limitations exist with respect to service
availability, including transportation issues? If
so, what efforts did the agency undertake to
overcome these obstacles?
Guidelines
In determining whether reasonable efforts
were made:
(5) Are the State agency's activities associated
with making and finalizing an alternate
permanent placement consistent with the
permanency goal? For example, if the
permanency goal is adoption, has the agency
filed for termination of parental rights, listed
the child on State and national adoption
exchanges, or implemented child-specific
recruitment activities?
Guidelines
The legislative history makes the point that
the required judicial determinations should
not become "...a mere pro forma exercise
in paper shuffling to obtain Federal
funding..." (pg. 4056, 65 Fed. Reg.).
REASONABLE EFFORTS TO REUNIFY IN
DEPENDENCY CASES
The Oregon Child Advocacy Project
Professor Leslie J. Harris, Laura Althouse, Farron Lennon
and David Sherbo-Huggins
Last updated August 2009
Oregon Case Law
“The type and sufficiency of efforts that the
state is required to make and whether the
types of actions it requires parents to make
are reasonable depends on the particular
circumstances." State ex rel. SOSCF v.
Frazier, 152 Or. App. 568, 955 P.2d 272
(1998).
Oregon Case Law
The plan must be based on the family’s
needs and its resources to change and
must include “the perspective of the ward
and family,” ORS 419B.343(1)(b). See
also State ex rel. SOSCF v. Hammons,
170 Or. App. 287, 300-02, 12 P.3d 983
(2000) (reasonable efforts must be tailored
to the facts of each case). To the extent
possible, the family must be allowed to
assist in designing the service program. Id.
Oregon Case Law
When DHS has employed a consultant to
evaluate the parent, child or both and to
make recommendations, it ordinarily
should provide the services that the
consultant recommends… State ex rel.
SOSCF v. Hammons, 170 Or. App. 287,
300-02, 12 P.3d 983 (2000).
Oregon Case Law
[U]nder some circumstances the
reasonable efforts obligation may mean
that the agency must pay. For example, in
State ex rel. SOSCF v. Burke, 164 Or. App.
178, 990 P.2d 922 (1999), the court held
that …, the state had to pay for the service.
Oregon Case Law
[W]hen services are provided, parents must
be given sufficient time to learn the new skills
and correct the problems. The Court of
Appeals recently held that a permanency plan
should not have been changed from
reunification to termination of parental rights
because the parents had not been given
enough time to implement what they had
learned… State ex rel. DHS v. Shugars, 208
Or. App. 694, 717-18, 145 P.3d 354 (2006).
Oregon Case Law
DHS has an ongoing obligation to monitor and adapt the
treatment plan, particularly to respond to significant
changes in the parent’s situation… [I]n State ex rel. Dept.
of Human Services v H.S.C., 218 Or. App. 415, 427 n. 2,
180 P.3d 39, 46 (2008):
When fundamental facts relevant to family reunification are
significantly different during the assessment period (prior
to the permanency hearing) from those that existed when
the case plan was formulated and the service agreement
was struck, …, it may be necessary to modify the plan and
service agreement to reflect those changes in
circumstances in order for DHS to satisfy its obligation to
make reasonable efforts…
Oregon Case Law
In State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Williams, 204
Or. App. 496, 130 P.3d 801(2006),… The
court observed that DHS is not excused
from making reasonable efforts solely
because a parent is incarcerated and that
what was reasonable for such a parent
depended on the circumstances.
Oregon Case Law
[I]n State ex rel. Dept. of Human Services v
H.S.C., 218 Or. App. 415, 427, 180 P.3d 39
(2008), the court of appeals reversed a trial
court holding that DHS had made reasonable
efforts on behalf of a father who was detained
by Immigration and Customs Enforcement as
an undocumented alien… The court said,
“the mere detention of the parent does not
excuse the state from making reasonable
efforts by inquiry and arranging the services
that might be available under the
circumstances.”
Oregon Case Law
Reasonable efforts should be evaluated by
asking whether the services offered:
are designed to solve the problems that caused
the court to find the child dependent;
 are tailored to the specific strengths and needs of
the family, rather than being standardized;
 specify appropriate, timely, and effective services
that the agency will provide;
 afford the parents a reasonable amount of time to
adjust their conduct; and
 are changed when fundamental facts relevant to
family reunification change, as when a parent is
incarcerated, detained, or deported.
