Discretionary appointment of counsel

While parents and Indian custodians of Indian children have the right to counsel upon request if they are “without sufficient finanical means to employ suitable counsel possessing skills and experience commensurate with the nature of the petition and the compexity of the case,” Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 419B.647, all other parents in dependency proceedings may be appointed counsel subject to the judge’s discretion.  Counsel is appointed “whenever the nature of the proceedings and due process so require.”  Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 419B.205(1).  The statute goes on to list factors for the court to consider, such as “[t]he duration and degree of invasiveness of the interference with the parent-child relationship that possibly could result from the proceeding,” the complexity of the issues and evidence, the nature of the contested allegations and evidence, and the effect the ruling will have on subsequent proceedings (such as termination of parental rights).

The Court of Appeals has stated that “in determining whether an indigent parent is entitled to counsel in a particular non-termination dependency proceeding, the juvenile court must consider the four factors outlined in ORS 419B.205(1). While there is nothing in the statute suggesting that these factors are exclusive in determining the nature of, and due process requirements for, a particular proceeding, a juvenile court must at minimum consider those factors.”  Matter of P. G., 348 Or. App. 398, 408 (2026).  The P.G. court added that  “A parent who is entitled to appointed counsel as a matter of right under ORS 419B.205(1) can waive that right, and we apply the Sixth Amendment standard for determining waiver validity to Oregon juvenile proceedings.”  In P.G., the court found that the trial judge had failed to determine that mother had waived her right to counsel either explicitly or implicitly but rather had relied on the decisions from prior trial judges in the case that mother would not be appointed another lawyer after dismissing earlier lawyers, even though the prior decisions did not explicitly state that mother had waived her right to counsel.