Dep't of Human Servs. v. A. B. (In Re J. B.)
362 Or. 412
Or.2018Background
- Child (born 2005) has autism, severe developmental and speech delays; mother was primary caretaker and had sole legal custody after 2010 divorce.
- In 2015 DHS issued a "founded disposition" for neglect and filed a petition alleging mother failed to supervise/protect the child (domestic partner L with criminal history and threats), failed to provide necessary therapeutic and educational services, and alleged father could not protect the child from mother.
- Juvenile court sustained amended allegations A, B, G, and I, found the child within jurisdiction, and committed the child to DHS legal custody for in‑home placement with a safety plan; permanency hearing set for June 6, 2016.
- Mother appealed the jurisdictional judgment to the Court of Appeals. While appeal was pending, the juvenile court entered a permanency judgment (March 23, 2016) finding mother minimally adequate, terminating the wardship, and dismissing the petition.
- Mother identified potential collateral consequences (e.g., impact on child support, custody disputes, employment/volunteer disqualification, stigma) and asserted the appeal was not moot; DHS moved to dismiss as moot. The Court of Appeals dismissed; the Oregon Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Mother (A. B.) Argument | DHS Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination of wardship renders an appeal of a jurisdictional judgment moot | A categorical rule like in criminal cases: termination does not make appeal moot unless DHS proves no possibility of collateral legal consequences | Wardship termination ordinarily renders the appeal moot; parent must show non‑speculative collateral consequences | No categorical rule; mootness depends on circumstances. If parent identifies practical/collateral effects, DHS bears burden to prove they are legally insufficient or factually nonexistent. |
| Who bears burden to show mootness when wardship is terminated | Mother: DHS must prove no possible collateral consequences (similar to criminal presumption) | DHS: parent must establish non‑speculative collateral consequences to avoid mootness | DHS has burden to persuade appellate court that identified consequences are legally insufficient or factually incorrect once parent identifies them. |
| Role of stigma/confidentiality in mootness analysis | Jurisdictional judgments are inherently stigmatizing like criminal convictions, so appeals should survive termination absent extraordinary circumstances | Juvenile records are generally confidential and findings vary in stigmatizing effect; stigma alone should not create categorical rule | Stigma may matter case‑by‑case; not inherently dispositive. Confidentiality and the nature of specific findings can limit stigma’s impact. |
| Application to this record: did DHS meet its burden here? | Mother contends findings will disadvantage future DHS evaluations, custody disputes, employment/volunteer checks, and cause stigma | DHS argued the effects are speculative and the record (termination, mother’s cooperation, benefits from services) limits practical harm | Held: DHS met its burden; consequences mother identified were legally insufficient or speculative in this factual context, so the appeal is moot and Court of Appeals affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (1968) (criminal convictions are moot only if no possibility of collateral legal consequences)
- Dept. of Human Services v. G.D.W., 353 Or. 25 (2012) (juvenile adjudication with severe findings may produce collateral consequences that defeat mootness)
- Brumnett v. PSRB, 315 Or. 402 (1993) (mootness inquiry considers whether court decision will have practical effect on parties)
- Couey v. Atkins, 357 Or. 460 (2015) (prudential grounds may support dismissal, but justiciability requires analysis of practical effects)