In Re E. C‪.‬

Father appeals from a judgment that authorized the Department of Human Services (DHS) to change its plan for his child, E, from reunification to adoption. He argues that the trial court erred by admitting certain hearsay evidence that did not fall within the exception for evidence "relating to the wards mental, physical and social history and prognosis[.]" ORS 419B.325(2). He also argues that, without the allegedly inadmissible evidence, the state did not establish that the permanency plan should be changed. We affirm.