The Oregon Court of Appeals has affirmed a ruling that changes the permanency plan for a 13-year-old girl from reunification with her parents to guardianship. This decision impacts the child, S.C.W., and her parents, C.A.W. and T.W., amid ongoing concerns about the family's history with the Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS).
The case, titled Dept. of Human Services v. C.A.W. / T.W., was filed on July 15, 2026, under docket number A189218. The ruling comes after a lengthy history of intervention by ODHS due to issues including substance abuse and domestic violence. The decision is significant as it reflects the court's emphasis on the child's well-being and the importance of stability in her life.
Background
The parties involved in this case are the Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS), the parents C.A.W. and T.W., and their daughter, S.C.W. The dispute centers around the permanency plan for S.C.W., who has been under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court since April 2024 due to concerns about her safety and well-being.
ODHS had a history of involvement with the family dating back to 2007, with significant interventions occurring in 2015 when several children were placed in foster care due to neglect linked to the parents' substance abuse. The situation escalated in 2024 when S.C.W. was removed from her home following a domestic violence incident involving her mother. This led to a series of evaluations and interventions aimed at addressing the family's issues.
The Ruling
The Court of Appeals, led by Presiding Judge Ortega, ruled that the juvenile court did not err in changing S.C.W.'s permanency plan from reunification to guardianship. The court found that ODHS had made reasonable efforts to reunify the family but that neither parent had made sufficient progress to ensure the child's safety. The ruling stated, "We conclude that the record supports the juvenile court’s determination that ODHS made reasonable efforts to reunify S with mother."
Furthermore, the court emphasized the importance of S.C.W.'s circumstances and preferences in its decision. The opinion highlighted that S.C.W. had expressed a desire not to return to her parents' care, stating, "S had told the CASA in March 2025 that she did not want to return to mother’s care because her mom 'will never change.'" This acknowledgment of the child's voice and needs played a crucial role in the court's decision.
Impact
This ruling sets a significant precedent regarding the role of children's preferences in custody and guardianship decisions. It underscores the importance of considering a child's well-being and stability when determining permanency plans. The court's decision to prioritize guardianship over reunification reflects a growing recognition of the need for safe and stable environments for children in the foster care system.
Moving forward, this case may influence similar cases involving child welfare and custody, particularly in how courts assess the reasonable efforts of agencies like ODHS and the progress of parents in addressing the issues that led to intervention. It highlights the necessity for parents to demonstrate substantial improvements in their circumstances to regain custody of their children.
What's Next
While the parents have the option to appeal the ruling, the court's decision stands as a significant legal precedent. There may also be related cases pending that address similar issues of guardianship and parental rights within the juvenile court system.