Department of Human Services v. L. G.
251 Or. App. 1
| Or. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Juvenile court found L within its jurisdiction under ORS 419B.100(l)(c) due to conditions endangering welfare, based largely on domestic violence by L’s father.
- Court also found mother failed to recognize risk to L and to her older child J, leading to harm to J and inability to protect L from father.
- Mother, 19 at the August 2011 hearing, was ordered to participate in Teen Insight and domestic violence counseling, and to keep medical appointments for L.
- J, born August 14, 2009, was premature; mother neglected J’s medical care for 10 months, resulting in weak bones likely due to nutritional deficiency.
- L was born November 12, 2010; its father (not J’s father) is described as extremely controlling and abusive in J’s presence; he admitted to harming J.
- Appellant argued that the original jurisdictional basis no longer existed and that there were no current conditions endangering L; DHS acknowledged changed circumstances but urged continued risk.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether current conditions endanger L under ORS 419B.100(l)(c) | Mother argues current risks no longer exist. | State contends risk persists due to potential future harm and mother’s past failure to recognize abuse. | No current threat; jurisdiction reversed |
| Sufficiency of evidence showing ongoing risk to L | Evidence shows mother now avoids contact with father and adheres to supervision. | Past abuse and failure to recognize risk could recur with others; evidence supports ongoing danger. | Evidence insufficient for current endangerment; jurisdiction reversed |
| Appropriate scope of review in de novo vs. appellate review | Review de novo for jurisdictional issues. | Parties did not request de novo review; standard requires reviewing trial court findings. | De novo review declined; deference to trial findings preserved |
| Impact of changed circumstances on original jurisdictional basis | Changed dynamics (separation from father, no contact) negate ongoing risk. | Concern remains about potential future risk to L or others. | Changed circumstances eliminate current basis; jurisdiction reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of Human Services v. C. Z., 236 Or App 436 (2010) (de novo review generally not used unless exceptional)
- State v. S. T. S., 236 Or App 646 (2010) (preponderance of evidence for endangering welfare)
- State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Vanbuskirk, 202 Or App 401 (2005) (totality of circumstances; reasonable likelihood of harm)
- State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Smith, 316 Or 646 (1993) (focus on protection needs of the child)
- State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Brammer, 133 Or App 544 (1995) (focus on current conditions vs. past events)