Dept. of Human Services v. S. L. S.

74 October 21, 2026 No. 1015 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of W. W., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. S. L. S., Appellant. Jefferson County Circuit Court 25JU00730; A190206 (Control) In the Matter of A. W., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. S. L. S., Appellant. Jefferson County Circuit Court 25JU00731; A190207 In the Matter of J. W., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. S. L. S., Appellant. Jefferson County Circuit Court 25JU00732; A190208 In the Matter of M. R. W. S., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Cite as 354 Or App 74 (2026) 75 S. L. S., Appellant. Jefferson County Circuit Court 25JU00733; A190209 Daina A. Vitolins, Judge. Submitted September 23, 2026. Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Sean Connor, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Solicitor General, and Derek Olson, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Egan, Judge, and Jacquot, Judge. JACQUOT, J. Appeal dismissed. 76 Dept. of Human Services v. S. L. S. JACQUOT, J. In this consolidated juvenile dependency case, mother appeals from review judgments in her four children’s cases and challenges the determination that the Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS) made reasonable efforts towards effectuating reunification of her family. A party to a juvenile dependency case may appeal from a juvenile court judgment only when the judgment “adversely affect[s]” the “rights or duties” of that party. ORS 419A.200(1). Here, the review judg- ments mother challenges made no substantial change to the children’s wardships nor denied mother any affirmative relief she sought. Thus, we conclude that the review judgments are not appealable and dismiss mother’s appeal. The juvenile court asserted dependency jurisdic- tion over mother’s four children and placed the children in the legal custody of ODHS. One of the bases for the juve- nile court’s jurisdiction was that mother’s “mental health problems interfere[d] with her ability to safely parent.” And during a required psychological evaluation, mother was diagnosed with Munchausen’s-by-proxy, a condition that had impacted the medical care she sought and obtained for her children. Mother’s psychologist recommended that she receive “specialized psychotherapy for Munchausen’s by proxy” and a “neuropsychological evaluation” to determine whether any “organic issues” were impacting her progress. At the time of the review hearing, ODHS had not given mother referrals to either service. During the review hearing, mother’s counsel informed the juvenile court that she had not yet received referrals to those services: “You know, the problem is with my client, Your Honor, is we’re kind of in a holding pattern because, you know, ever since the psych eval came out three months ago and we’re waiting for referrals to this therapist and that therapist, I don’t even know if the neuropsychological has been done or even referred. I would ask that the [c]ourt order those things because we don’t want it to fall in the cracks.” Further, counsel noted that mother objected to the juvenile court determining that ODHS’s reunification efforts were Cite as 354 Or App 74 (2026) 77 reasonable until the neuropsychological examination was complete: “And we—you know, we have a standing objection to rea- sonable efforts until that neuropsychological is done. It’s taken way too long, and there hasn’t even been a referral. And so, yeah, we would maintain that and ask the [c]ourt to order those services.” After those remarks from mother’s counsel, the juvenile court asked ODHS about scheduling mother’s neu- ropsychological examination. ODHS responded that it was waiting for billing authorization. The court did not inquire further into ODHS giving mother a referral to specialized psychotherapy. At the conclusion of the hearing, the juve- nile court ordered ODHS to complete the referral for moth- er’s neuropsychological examination and orally ruled that ODHS made reasonable efforts to reunify the family: “I find that [ODHS] has provided reasonable efforts to the family and the children based on the reports, the Family Court Report, the CASA Report, and [ODHS]’s recitation in court today.” The juvenile court then entered the review judgments, which all utilized the same template form. On the first three children’s judgment forms, the juvenile court checked the box next to the sentence “ODHS has made reasonable efforts toward effectuating the permanent plan.” However, the juvenile court did not check that same box on the fourth child’s review judgment form. Mother appeals the review judgments, raising five assignments of error. In her first four assignments of error, she argues that the juvenile court erred in ruling that “ODHS * * * made reasonable efforts toward effectuating the permanent plan” because ODHS had not yet completed the specialized psychotherapy referral at the time of the review hearing. In her fifth assignment of error, mother argues that her fourth child’s review judgment is legally deficient because the juvenile court did not check the box regarding reasonable efforts on the written judgment form, which con- flicted with the juvenile court’s oral finding. 78 Dept. of Human Services v. S. L. S. On appeal, ODHS argues the juvenile court review judgments are not appealable. We agree.1 Under ORS 419A.200(1), a party may appeal a judgment only if the par- ty’s “rights or duties are adversely affected” by that judg- ment. A review judgment is not appealable when it makes “no substantial change in the nature or degree of the con- ditions relating to the wardship” and “merely continues the existing placement under the wardship,” unless it otherwise diminishes a right of a party, enlarges a duty of a party, or rules on a party’s motion. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Nagle, 36 Or App 237, 240-41, 584 P2d 338 (1978). A reasonable efforts determination made over a par- ent’s objection “does not necessarily affect a parent’s rights or duties and, accordingly, does not necessarily render a decision of the juvenile court appealable.” Dept. of Human Services v. A. D. D. B., 278 Or App 503, 505, 375 P3d 575, rev den, 360 Or 237 (2016). For example, in State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Vockrodt, the mother moved for a “hearing [on] lack of reasonable efforts to return the child home.” 147 Or App 4, 8, 934 P2d 620 (1997). During the hearing, the mother argued that “reasonable efforts had not been made to continue the child in therapy so that the child could be returned home.” Id. The juvenile court concluded in a review judgment that ODHS had made reasonable efforts and ordered the child to “continue in therapy[.]” Id. at 6, 8. The mother appealed from that judgment, challenging the continued removal of her child and the juvenile court’s reasonable efforts determi- nation. Id. at 6. We concluded that, even though the “overall effect” of the order was unfavorable to the mother, she was not “adversely affected” because the trial court granted her requests for a hearing and for the child to continue therapy. Id. at 8. Like in Vockrodt, the review judgments here con- tinued the status of the children’s wardships and mother was granted the relief she requested from the juvenile court, despite the unfavorable reasonable efforts determi- nation. We understand mother’s counsel to have moved the 1 Because we agree that the review judgments are not appealable, we do not have jurisdiction to consider ODHS’s argument that this appeal is moot or the merits of mother’s assignments of error. Accordingly, we do not address those arguments. Cite as 354 Or App 74 (2026) 79 juvenile court to enter an order for ODHS to refer mother to neuropsychological services. The juvenile court granted that motion, “order[ing] [ODHS] to submit the referral for the neuropsychological * * * referral.” Accordingly, an event occurred that affected mother’s rights. However, that event does not render the review judgment appealable, because it did not adversely affect mother’s rights. When the juve- nile court orally ruled on that motion, it granted mother’s request for an order that ODHS make the referral. In conclusion, the review judgments were not appealable because they did not substantially change the condition of the children’s wardships and did not adversely affect mother’s rights or duties. Appeal dismissed.