1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
83rd OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2025 Regular Session
Senate Bill 1104
Sponsored by Senator BONHAM (at the request of Jason Gearhart)
SUMMARY
The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject
to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor’s brief statement of the essential features of the
measure as introduced.The statement includes a measure digest written in compliance with applicable readability
standards.
Digest: The Act says that a court shall order the return of a child taken into protective custody
if the court finds that there is not clear and convincing evidence to support keeping the child from
home. The Act also says that a DHS employee who does not return a child as ordered by the court
has kidnapped the child.(Flesch Readability Score: 63.5).
Increases the standard of proof necessary to retain a child in protective custody after removal
from the child’s parent or guardian.
Expands the crime of kidnapping in the second degree to include circumstances when an em-
ployee of the Department of Human Services fails to comply with a court order to return a child
taken into protective custody to the child’s parent or guardian.
A BILL FOR AN ACT
Relating to accountability for child welfare employees; amending ORS 419B.305, 419B.310, 419B.325
and 419B.476.
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
SECTION 1. ORS 419B.305 is amended to read:
419B.305. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no later than [60] 15 days after a
petition alleging that a child is within the jurisdiction of the court under ORS 419B.100 has been
filed, the court shall hold a hearing on the petition and enter an order under ORS 419B.325 (1). Upon
written order supported by factual findings of good cause, the court may continue a petition beyond
[60] 15 days.
(2) At the commencement of the hearing, unless the court has entered an order finding that the
child is an Indian child, the court shall inquire and make a finding, subject to the procedures under
ORS 419B.636 (4), regarding whether there is reason to know that the child is an Indian child.
(3)(a) If the child is an Indian child and if the court found under ORS 419B.185 (5)(b)(B) that
protective custody is necessary to prevent imminent physical damage or harm to the child, no later
than [30] 15 days after the petition is filed, the court shall hold the hearing and enter the order
described in subsection (1) of this section, unless:
(A) The child has been returned to the child’s parent or Indian custodian;
(B) The court orders the child to be returned to the child’s parent or Indian custodian;
(C) The court continues the protective order regarding the child for more than 30 days as pro-
vided in ORS 419B.185 (5)(d); or
(D) The court grants the child’s parent, Indian custodian or tribe an extension of time to prepare
for participation in the hearing as provided in ORS 419B.639 (5).
(b) The court may not schedule a hearing on the petition, or enter an order on the petition,
unless the inquiry and notice requirements under ORS 419B.636 (2) and 419B.639 (2) and all relevant
timelines have been followed.
(4) No later than [30] 15 days after a petition alleging jurisdiction under ORS 419B.100 is filed,
NOTE:Matter in boldfaced type in an amended section is new; matter [italic and bracketed] is existing law to be omitted.
New sections are in boldfaced type.
LC 4352 SB1104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
all parties shall comply with ORS 419B.881.
(5) When a person denies allegations in the petition, the court shall set the case for a hearing
within the time limits prescribed by subsection (1) of this section. Upon written order supported by
factual findings of good cause, the court may continue the hearing beyond the [60-day] 15-day time
limit.
(6) Upon expiration of any continuance granted by this section, the court shall give a petition
filed under ORS 419B.100 that is beyond the time limit imposed by subsection (1) of this section the
highest priority on the court docket.
SECTION 2. ORS 419B.310 is amended to read:
419B.310. (1) The hearing shall be held by the court without a jury and may be continued from
time to time. During the hearing of a case filed pursuant to ORS 419B.100, the court, on its own
motion or upon the motion of a party, may take testimony from any child appearing as a witness
and may exclude the child’s parents and other persons if the court finds such action would be likely
to be in the best interests of the child. However, the court may not exclude the attorney for each
party and the testimony shall be reported.
(2) Stenographic notes or other report of the hearings shall be taken only when required by the
court.
(3)(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the facts alleged in the petition showing the
child to be within the jurisdiction of the court as provided in ORS 419B.100 (1), unless admitted,
must be established:
(A) By [a preponderance of] clear and convincing competent evidence; or
(B) If the child is an Indian child, by clear and convincing competent evidence.
(b) The evidence under paragraph (a)(B) of this section must:
(A) Include testimony of one or more qualified expert witnesses under ORS 419B.642, demon-
strating that the Indian child’s continued custody by the child’s parent or custody by the child’s
Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the Indian child; and
(B) Show a causal relationship between the particular conditions in the Indian child’s home and
the likelihood that the continued custody of the Indian child by the child’s parent or custody by the
child’s Indian custodian will result in serious emotional or physical damage to the particular Indian
child who is the subject of the child custody proceeding, as defined in ORS 419B.603. Evidence that
shows the existence of community or family poverty, isolation, single parenthood, custodian age,
crowded or inadequate housing, substance abuse or nonconforming social behavior does not, by it-
self, establish a causal relationship as required by this paragraph.
(c) As used in this subsection, “custody” and “continued custody” have the meanings described
in ORS 419B.606.
(4) If the court finds under ORS 419B.305 (2), or at any time prior to the commencement of the
hearing, that there is reason to know that the child is an Indian child, the jurisdictional require-
ments of ORS 419B.305 and 419B.627 must be met before the court may assume jurisdiction of the
case.
SECTION 3. ORS 419B.325 is amended to read:
419B.325. (1) At the termination of the hearing or hearings in the proceeding, the court shall
enter an appropriate order directing the disposition to be made of the case.
(2) For the purpose of determining proper disposition of the ward, testimony, reports or other
material relating to the ward’s mental, physical and social history and prognosis may be received
by the court without regard to their competency or relevancy under the rules of evidence.
[2] SB1104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
(3) If the child is an Indian child, the court’s order under this section must be in compliance
with the placement preferences described in ORS 419B.654.
(4)(a) The court shall order the release of the child to the child’s parent or guardian from
whom the child was removed if:
(A) The court determines that the facts alleged in the petition showing the child to be
within the jurisdiction of the court are not established by clear and convincing competent
evidence;or
(B) There is clear and convincing competent evidence that the circumstances or sur-
roundings of the child are such that continuation of the child in the child’s home or in the
care or custody of the child’s parent or legal guardian would not present an imminent danger
to the child.
(b) If the court orders the release of the child under paragraph (a) of this section, the
Department of Human Services shall return the child to the child’s parent or guardian within
48 hours from the time of the order, subject to any conditions the state can prove by clear
and convincing competent evidence as necessary to protect the health, safety or welfare of
thechild.
(c) The failure of a department employee who is responsible for returning the child to
do so constitutes kidnapping in the second degree under ORS 163.225.
SECTION 4. ORS 419B.476 is amended to read:
419B.476. (1) A permanency hearing shall be conducted in the manner provided in ORS 418.312,
419B.310, 419B.812 to 419B.839 and 419B.908, except that the court may receive testimony and re-
ports as provided in ORS 419B.325.
(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 ward is an Indian child, active
efforts as described in ORS 419B.645 to make it possible for the ward to safely return home and
whether the parent has made sufficient progress to make it possible for the ward to safely return
home. In making its determination, the court shall consider the ward’s health and safety the para-
mountconcerns.
(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.
(c) If the case plan at the time of the hearing is something other than to reunify the family,
determine whether the department has considered permanent placement options for the ward, in-
cluding, if appropriate, whether the department has considered both permanent in-state placement
options and permanent interstate placement options for the ward.
(d) Make the findings of fact under ORS 419B.449 (3).
(e) If the child is an Indian child and the case plan at the time of the hearing is something other
than to reunify the family, make a finding whether, after the department’s consultation with the
child’s tribe, and, if the tribe appears at the hearing, the court’s direct consultation with the tribe,
tribal customary adoption, as described in ORS 419B.656, is an appropriate permanent placement for
the child if reunification is unsuccessful.
(3) When the ward is 14 years of age or older, in addition to making the determination required
by subsection (2) of this section, at a permanency hearing the court shall review the comprehensive
[3] SB1104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
plan for the ward’s transition to successful adulthood and determine and make findings as to:
(a) Whether the plan is adequate to ensure the ward’s transition to successful adulthood;
(b) Whether the department has offered appropriate services pursuant to the plan; and
(c) Whether the department has involved the ward in the development of the plan.
(4) At a permanency hearing the court may:
(a) If the case plan changed during the period since the last review by a local citizen review
board or court hearing and a plan to reunify the family was in effect for any part of that period,
determine whether the department has made reasonable efforts or, if the ward is an Indian child,
active efforts as described in ORS 419B.645 to make it possible for the ward to safely return home.
In making its determination, the court shall consider the ward’s health and safety the paramount
concerns;
(b) If the case plan changed during the period since the last review by a local citizen review
board or court hearing and a plan other than to reunify the family was in effect for any part of that
period, determine whether the department has made reasonable efforts to place the ward in a timely
manner in accordance with the plan, including, if appropriate, placement of the ward through an
interstate placement, and to complete the steps necessary to finalize the permanent placement;
(c) If the court determines that further efforts will make it possible for the ward to safely return
home within a reasonable time, order that the parents participate in specific services for a specific
period of time and make specific progress within that period of time;
(d) Determine the adequacy and compliance with the case plan and the case progress report;
(e) Review the efforts made by the department to develop the concurrent permanent plan, in-
cluding but not limited to identification of appropriate permanent in-state placement options and
appropriate permanent interstate placement options and, if adoption is the concurrent case plan,
identification and selection of a suitable adoptive placement for the ward;
(f) Order the department to develop or expand the case plan or concurrent permanent plan and
provide a case progress report to the court and other parties within 10 days after the permanency
hearing;
(g) Order the department or agency to modify the care, placement and supervision of the ward;
(h) Order the local citizen review board to review the status of the ward prior to the next court
hearing;or
(i) Set another court hearing at a later date.
(5) The court shall enter an order within 20 days after the permanency hearing. In addition to
any determinations or orders the court may make under subsection (4) of this section, the order
shall include the following:
(a) The court’s determinations required under subsections (2) and (3) of this section, including
a brief description of the efforts the department has made with regard to the case plan in effect at
the time of the permanency hearing.
(b) The court’s determination of the permanency plan for the ward that includes whether and,
if applicable, when:
(A) The ward will be returned to the parent;
(B) The ward will be placed for adoption, and a petition for termination of parental rights will
be filed;
(C) The ward will be referred for establishment of legal guardianship;
(D) The ward will be placed with a fit and willing relative; or
(E) If the ward is 16 years of age or older, the ward will be placed in another planned permanent
[4] SB1104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
livingarrangement.
(c) If the court determines that the permanency plan for the ward should be to return home
because further efforts will make it possible for the ward to safely return home within a reasonable
time, the court’s determination of the services in which the parents are required to participate, the
progress the parents are required to make and the period of time within which the specified progress
must be made.
(d) If the court determines that the permanency plan for the ward should be adoption, the
court’s determination of whether one of the circumstances in ORS 419B.498 (2) is applicable.
(e) If the court determines that the permanency plan for the ward should be establishment of a
legal guardianship, the court’s determination of why neither placement with parents nor adoption
isappropriate.
(f) If the court determines that the permanency plan for a ward should be placement with a fit
and willing relative, the court’s determination of why placement with the ward’s parents, or for
adoption, or placement with a legal guardian, is not appropriate.
(g) If the court determines that the permanency plan for the ward should be tribal customary
adoption, the court’s determination of whether one of the circumstances in ORS 419B.498 (2) is ap-
plicable.
(h) If the court determines that the permanency plan for a ward 16 years of age or older should
be another planned permanent living arrangement, the court’s determinations:
(A) Why another planned permanent living arrangement is in the ward’s best interests and a
compelling reason, that must be documented by the department, why it would not be in the best
interests of the ward to be returned home, placed for adoption, placed with a legal guardian or
placed with a fit and willing relative; and
(B) That the department has taken steps to ensure that:
(i) The ward’s substitute care provider is following the reasonable and prudent parent standard;
and
(ii) The ward has regular, ongoing opportunities to engage in age-appropriate or developmentally
appropriate activities, including consultation with the ward in an age-appropriate manner about the
opportunities the ward has to participate in the activities.
(i) If the current placement is not expected to be permanent, the court’s projected timetable for
return home or for placement in another planned permanent living arrangement. If the timetable set
forth by the court is not met, the department shall promptly notify the court and parties.
(j) If the ward is an Indian child, the tribal affiliation of the ward.
(k) If the ward is an Indian child and if the court determines that the permanency plan for the
ward should be something other than to reunify the family, the court’s determination, by clear and
convincing evidence, that:
(A) Active efforts as described in ORS 419B.645 were provided to make it possible for the Indian
child to safely return home;
(B) Despite the efforts provided, continued removal of the Indian child is necessary to prevent
serious emotional or physical damage to the Indian child;
(C) The parent has not made sufficient progress to make it possible for the Indian child to safely
return home; and
(D) The new permanency plan complies with the placement preferences described in ORS
419B.654.
(L) If the ward has been placed in an interstate placement, the court’s determination of whether
[5] SB1104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
the interstate placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the ward.
(6) In making the determinations under subsection (5)(h) of this section, the court shall ask the
ward about the ward’s desired permanency outcome.
(7) If the child is an Indian child:
(a) The court shall follow the placement preferences described in ORS 419B.654.
(b) If the court finds that the department did not provide active efforts to make it possible for
the Indian child to safely return home, the court may not, at that permanency hearing, change the
permanency plan to something other than to reunify the family.
(c) If the court finds that the department did not provide active efforts to make it possible for
the Indian child to return home, except as otherwise required under ORS 419B.470, the court may
not set a date for a subsequent permanency hearing until the department has provided active efforts
for the number of days that active efforts were not previously provided.
(d)(A) If the court determines that tribal customary adoption, as described in ORS 419B.656, is
an appropriate permanent placement for the child, and the Indian child’s tribe consents, the court
shall request that the tribe file with the court a tribal customary adoption order or judgment evi-
dencing that the tribal customary adoption has been completed. The tribe must file the tribal cus-
tomary adoption order or judgment no less than 20 days prior to the date set by the court for
hearing.
(B) Upon the tribe’s request, the court may grant an extension of time to file the tribal cus-
tomary adoption order or judgment, not to exceed 60 days.
(C) If the tribe does not file the tribal customary adoption order or judgment within the desig-
nated time period, the court shall order a new permanency hearing to determine the best
permanency plan for the child.
(8) Any final decision of the court made pursuant to the permanency hearing is appealable under
ORS 419A.200. On appeal of a final decision of the court under this subsection, the court’s finding,
if any, under ORS 419B.340 (5) that the department is not required to make reasonable efforts to
make it possible for the ward to safely return home is an interlocutory order to which a party may
assign error.
(9) If the court orders the child to be returned home or orders the department to provide
reasonable efforts to enable the child to be returned home, the department shall identify a
department employee who will be responsible for returning the child or ensuring that rea-
sonable efforts are made to enable the child to be returned home. The failure of the employee
to return the child or to ensure the provision of reasonable efforts to enable the child to
return home constitutes kidnapping in the second degree under ORS 163.225.
[6]