Before an Oregon court can terminate a parent's rights, the court must make written findings. This is not surprising, given the legal ramifications of removing a child from his or her birth parents.

Not only must the court make written findings about why termination is appropriate, the court must also make written findings that why certain exceptions do not include. Under ORS 419B.498, for example, if a birth parent is “successfully participating' in social services or if the court finds “compelling reasons” why termination would not be in the child's best interests, a trial court cannot order termination.

In the Matter of A.H., the juvenile court terminated the mother's rights after finding that the mother was abusing substances and couldn't stay clean and sober. Following a permanency hearing, the court determined that the permanency plan should be adoption. However, the court did not include the required written finding that none of the exceptions in ORS 419B.498(2) were applicable, even though the judge made his reasons clear in his oral ruling.

The mother appealed the ruling, and the Court of Appeals vacated the adoption finding. On appeal, the Department of Human Services, which removed the child initially from the mother's home, argued that the trial court specifically incorporated its oral findings into its written rulings, which was sufficient. But the appellate court disagreed.

A permanency judgment, the court ruled, needs to connect “all the dots in writing—not “require someone to hunt and peck around audio recordings” to fully understand the court's decision. Written findings mean written findings—nothing less.

As a result, the Court of Appeals remanded the decision back to the trial court for another hearing.