444 P.3d 1098
Or.2019Background
- DHS obtained juvenile-court jurisdiction over infant A in 2012 under ORS 419B.100(1)(c) for mother’s substance abuse; A became a ward and was placed with guardian Fuller.
- Juvenile court changed permanency plan from reunification to guardianship and in Nov. 2013 established a general guardianship under ORS 419B.366.
- Mother moved in April 2016 to vacate the guardianship and terminate wardship, arguing the factual basis for jurisdiction (mother’s substance abuse) no longer existed.
- Juvenile court denied the motion, finding vacating the guardianship was not in A’s best interests, without determining whether jurisdictional facts had ceased.
- Court of Appeals vacated and remanded, holding the juvenile court erred by not deciding whether it still had jurisdiction because ORS 419B.366(6) ties guardianship duration to the court’s jurisdiction.
- Oregon Supreme Court granted review and held the juvenile court must determine whether it must terminate wardship (and thus cannot continue the guardianship if jurisdiction ends); it affirmed remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a general guardianship under ORS 419B.366 can continue if the factual bases for juvenile-court jurisdiction have ceased | Mother: If jurisdictional facts no longer exist the court must terminate wardship under ORS 419B.328 and the guardianship cannot continue | Fuller/DHS: Vacatur requires satisfying ORS 419B.368(3) (best interests, amelioration, parent able/willing); mother’s motion is not cognizable without those findings | Held: ORS 419B.366(6) permits two ways a guardianship ends: (1) vacatur under ORS 419B.368 or (2) loss of jurisdiction under ORS 419B.328; if jurisdiction ends court cannot continue guardianship. |
| Whether ORS 419B.366(6) renders ORS 419B.368(3) a nullity | Mother: ORS 419B.366(6)’s text controls; termination of jurisdiction ends guardianship regardless of ORS 419B.368(3) | Fuller/DHS: Allowing termination by showing cessation of jurisdiction would make ORS 419B.368(3) meaningless and undermine permanency | Held: No. The statutes are read together: vacatur under ORS 419B.368 remains available; but if court does not vacate under that provision, guardianship lasts only while jurisdiction exists under ORS 419B.328. ORS 419B.368(3) remains operative in appropriate cases. |
| Whether juvenile court must decide jurisdiction before resolving vacatur motion | Mother: Court must determine whether jurisdictional facts persist because that controls guardianship’s continuation | Fuller/DHS: Court may deny vacatur on best-interest grounds without resolving jurisdictional-fact question | Held: Court must determine whether it must terminate wardship (i.e., whether jurisdictional facts have ceased) because that outcome forecloses continuing the guardianship. |
| Whether policy/due-process concerns require different reading (protecting permanency) | Mother: Due-process concerns about preponderance standard argued but not pressed to change statutory reading | Fuller/DHS: Policy favors making vacatur contingent on ORS 419B.368(3) to protect permanency | Held: Policy concerns do not overcome plain statutory text; permanent guardianship under ORS 419B.365 remains available where legislature intended greater permanence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. S. M., 355 Or. 241 (2014) (describing juvenile court’s purpose in asserting jurisdiction)
- State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160 (2009) (statutory interpretation: text and context govern legislative intent)
- PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or. 606 (1993) (same principle on statutory construction)
- State v. A. L. M., 232 Or. App. 13 (2009) (court may not retain wardship if jurisdictional facts cease)
- Dept. of Human Services v. T. L., 279 Or. App. 673 (2016) (permitting motions to dismiss jurisdiction before parental-rights termination is consistent with statutory scheme)
- Dept. of Human Services v. J. C., 289 Or. App. 19 (2017) (Court of Appeals vacated juvenile-court order for failure to determine whether jurisdiction continued)