Department of Human Resources v. G. J. R.
254 Or. App. 436
| Or. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- DHS sought jurisdiction over Z as to both parents due to mother’s mental health/substance issues and father’s substance abuse/residential instability; later an amended petition added a new basis against father: three prior public indecency convictions and failure to complete sex offender treatment.
- At a hearing on the amended petition, the parties stipulated basic facts about father’s 1990, 2000, and 2002 convictions, the 2002 “no contact with minors” PPS condition, and that father had not completed a psychosexual evaluation since 1996.
- The juvenile court had previously taken jurisdiction based on the April 2011 petition alleging substance abuse and residential instability; the February 2012 hearing addressed only the added allegation
- DHS presented evidence of father’s sex offender history and failure to complete treatment, arguing the totality with existing allegations supported jurisdiction under ORS 419B.100(l)(c).
- Father moved to dismiss the added allegation as facially invalid and then argued the evidence failed to show a current risk of harm to Z; the court ruled DHS proved the additional allegation and entered judgment.
- The appellate court reversed, finding the record insufficient to show a current risk of harm from the added allegation alone or to show it contributed to the risk created by the existing bases of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the added allegation proves a current risk of harm to Z under ORS 419B.100(l)(c) | Ortega argues the sex offender conduct and non-completion of treatment do not prove a current risk. | DHS contends the allegations, viewed together with existing bases, suffice. | Reversed; insufficient evidence of current risk from the added allegation alone or in synergy with other bases. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. N.W., 232 Or App 101 (2009) (synergistic analysis of multiple allegations in jurisdiction)
- Dept. of Human Services v. C. Z., 236 Or App 436 (2010) (standard for reviewing jurisdiction; totality of circumstances)
- Dept. of Human Services v. A. F., 243 Or App 379 (2011) (current risk required; nexus with prior conduct)
- State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. T. S., 214 Or App 184 (2007) (preponderance and reasonable likelihood of harm)
- State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. N. S., 229 Or App 151 (2009) (sex offender status alone not per se risk; required nexus)
- B. B. v. Dept. of Human Services, 248 Or App 715 (2012) (untreated sex offender alone not sufficient; need current risk)