Dept. of Human Services v. P. I. M.

182 June 4, 2025 No. 519 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1). IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of S. M. S., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. P. I. M., Appellant. Jackson County Circuit Court 22JU02777; A185628 (Control) In the Matter of G. T. W. M., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. P. I. M., Appellant. Jackson County Circuit Court 22JU02778; A185629 Charles G. Kochlacs, Judge. Submitted April 30, 2025. Aron Perez-Selsky filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Inge D. Wells, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Joyce, Judge, and Jacquot, Judge. JACQUOT, J. Affirmed. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 341 Or App 182 (2025) 183 JACQUOT, J. In this juvenile dependency case, mother appeals and seeks reversal of a judgment establishing a durable guardianship for her children S, who was five at the time of the guardianship hearing, and G, who was nearly seven.1 Mother raises three assignments of error arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s grant of guardianship. Her arguments are preserved. Determining that the record was legally sufficient to support the juvenile court’s ruling, we affirm. The court took wardship over the children based on mother’s admission to jurisdictional allegations that her substance abuse interferes with her ability to safely par- ent and that she demonstrates symptoms of mental illness, which if left untreated, interfere with her ability to safely parent. The children have been in the care of their pater- nal aunt and her wife for several years. Mother was ordered to engage in visitation, substance abuse and mental health evaluations and treatment, and parent training. Mother has done so, and all parties, as well as the court, acknowledge that she appears to be making some progress. Nonetheless, there is evidence that she has struggled to maintain con- sistent sobriety. Approximately one year after jurisdiction was established, the court entered a judgment changing the permanency plans from reunification to guardianship. As part of the permanency hearing, the court made findings that guardianship was in the best interest of the children, and that mother was not making sufficient progress to have the children returned to her within a reasonable time.2 1 S’s father has never been involved in her life; at the permanency stage, the court found that there is no father with legal rights. G’s father is deceased. 2 In the permanency judgment, the court found that adoption is not appropri- ate. The court also found that placement with the relative guardian was in the best interest of the children, that ODHS made reasonable efforts to reunify the family, that mother has not made sufficient progress for the children to be safely returned to mother’s care within a reasonable time, and that guardianship is in the best interest of the children. To the extent that the court incorporated those findings made at the permanency determination stage into the guardianship determination, the court did not err. See Dept. of Human Services v. K. H., 256 Or App 242, 249-50, 301 P3d 427 (2013), adh’d to as modified on recons, 258 Or App 532, 310 P3d 671, rev den, 354 Or 699 (2014) (“The juvenile court may grant a motion for guardianship only after the court has approved a permanency plan of guardianship,” and the permanency hearing requires some of the same findings 184 Dept. of Human Services v. P. I. M. The juvenile court held a two-day hearing regard- ing the Oregon Department of Human Service’s (ODHS) motion to grant guardianship to the aunt. The hearing included testimony from mother, several mental health pro- viders, an ODHS social services specialist, a social worker who observed visitation between mother and her children, and admission of several exhibits. Relevant to this appeal, the ODHS social services specialist testified that, in her opinion, the children are not able to return to mother within a reasonable time period because mother had not been sta- ble, sober and symptom-free for long enough to conclude that the positive changes mother had made were going to last; that the guardians are “suitable” and “willing”; and that guardianship is in the best interest of the