Dep't of Human Servs. v. J. J. JR B. (In re J. J. B.)
291 Or. App. 226
Or. Ct. App.2018Background
- J, age 5, was removed and DHS filed a dependency petition after reports in Dec 2016–Feb 2017; DHS alleged parental methamphetamine use and domestic violence in the parental home.
- During a forensic interview J disclosed parents "smoke pot," described a bong, said parents keep a "secret" box, and reported parents sometimes argue; she recalled father once punching a hole in a wall at a former residence and that it scared her.
- DHS and police later encountered drug paraphernalia and suspected meth at parents' motel room, arrested father for meth possession/distribution, and found cash, scales, suspected meth, marijuana, and a bong; J was staying with grandmother at that time.
- Mother later admitted a relapse and about 3.5 months of meth use; father did not contest drug use but challenged DHS proof of risk to J. DHS dropped the allegation of drug distribution on appeal.
- The juvenile court found jurisdiction on four grounds: mother’s substance abuse, father’s substance abuse, and domestic violence in each parent’s home. Father appealed, challenging all bases; the appellate court considered all four together because DHS presented parents as a unit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHS) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction based on domestic violence | Parents have argued in J’s presence, father once punched a wall, exposure to yelling/power‑control endangers J | DHS failed to prove actual domestic violence harming J or a current, likely risk of serious injury | Reversed — evidence insufficient to show a present, non‑speculative risk of serious harm from domestic violence |
| Jurisdiction based on parents' methamphetamine use | Parents used methamphetamine, drugs/paraphernalia found in motel where child sometimes stayed; meth use alone presents significant danger to children | Drug use admitted but DHS failed to show nexus: no evidence parents used around J, left drugs within J’s access, or otherwise created a likely risk of serious harm | Reversed — substance use alone (and generalized evidence) insufficient to establish likely, specific risk to J |
| Cumulative effect of substance abuse + domestic violence | Even if each allegation alone is thin, combined they show parents create an unsafe environment for J | The record lacks evidence linking the two (no showing fights escalate when using drugs or that J is exposed to such combined risks) | Reversed — combined view does not supply the missing nexus or non‑speculative risk |
| Scope of appeal: review of mother‑based allegations on father’s appeal | DHS treated parents as a unit; juvenile court relied on combined parental conduct | Father argues review should be limited to allegations regarding him | Affirmed that appellate review may consider all bases because DHS presented and court decided the case treating parents as a unit |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. A. W., 276 Or.App. 276 (reversing jurisdiction where exposure to parental disagreement lacked evidence of likely serious harm)
- Dept. of Human Services v. K. C. F., 282 Or.App. 12 (insufficient evidence where emotional abuse allegations lacked proof of a present risk of serious harm)
- State ex rel. Juv. Dept. v. Smith, 316 Or. 646 (no per se rules; cannot assert jurisdiction based on generalized assumptions about a condition)
- Dept. of Human Services v. S. P., 249 Or.App. 76 (parents may be considered as a unit; appellate review can address all interrelated allegations)
- Dept. of Human Services v. C. Z., 236 Or.App. 436 (illegal drug use without evidence of resulting danger to children is insufficient for jurisdiction)
- Dept. of Human Services v. D. T. C., 231 Or.App. 544 (substance abuse or troubling parenting alone does not automatically justify state intervention when no present likely serious harm is shown)