adoption.222 The case began in 2009, when state officials removed L’s sibling from the birth
parents on the basis of neglect.223 That sibling was eventually adopted.224 Three years later, L
was born, and child welfare workers sought to take him into custody two days after his birth.225
The parents were diagnosed with mental and emotional problems, as well as anger management
and aggression problems,226 but because L was an Indian child, ICWA’s “active efforts” mandate
Thus, in late 2012, the state presented the parents with rehabilitation and treatment plans
requiring counseling, parenting classes, and regular visits with L.228 But the parents skipped
sessions, paid little attention to the classes, and had repeated emotional outbursts, including
storming out of an anger management session.229 Nevertheless, the state persisted in its efforts
throughout 2013. The parents were frequently uncooperative, and the counseling sessions,
conducted with L present, often ended in tension and frustration.230 “At a June session,” the
court later found, “father used abusive language and behavior towards [the counselor] in L’s
presence; neither parent recognized how such behavior could be frightening for L.”231 The
father’s “explosive behavior and inappropriate language” had led the counselor to terminate
other sessions, all leading to greater anxiety and delay,232 but the state continued its efforts.233
Only after eighteen months of persistent failures of this sort did the trial court rule that L could
222 Id. at 456.
226 J.M., 266 Or. App. at 456–57.
227 Id. at 464–66.
228 Id. at 464.
229 Id. at 464–66.
230 Id. at 466.
231 Id. at 467.
232 J.M., 266 Or. App. at 466–67.