Department of Human Services v. J. N.
253 Or. App. 494
| Or. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- M is a dependent child born in 2002; DHS intervention began in 2008 due to mother’s substance use, mental health issues, and domestic violence, resulting in wards and custody arrangements.
- Johnson, listed as M’s legal father at birth, was later found not to be M’s legal father (non-paternity judgment in 2009).
- DHS moved M among foster placements; by 2010 M was placed with A’s paternal grandparents; the court changed their permanency plan to adoption.
- In 2010, paternity was established; DHS filed for jurisdiction asserting endangerment and need for court planning; father admitted jurisdiction in December 2010.
- Father, who resided in North Carolina, began contact with M in 2010; several evaluations and tests occurred assessing father’s ability to care for M.
- In November 2011, the juvenile court denied father’s motion to dismiss jurisdiction and held a permanency hearing, ultimately changing the plan to guardianship in December 2011.
- The court later found that placing M with father within a reasonable time could cause severe mental and emotional harm, leading to the guardianship decision which this court reversed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly denied the motion to dismiss jurisdiction | Father contends lack of current risk after he could care for M; only issue would be lack of custody order. | DHS argues ongoing risk persists due to lack of relationship and custody, requiring jurisdiction. | Affirmed: jurisdiction denial was not error. |
| Whether the permanency plan should be guardianship | M’s best interests require guardianship due to lack of protective relationship and trauma history. | Guardianship warranted because return home would harm M and reunification unlikely in a reasonable time. | Reversed: evidence does not support that guardianship is required; return to father not proven to cause severe harm. |
| Whether evidence supports findings of severe harm if moved to father | Record shows transition would cause severe mental/emotional harm; guardianship appropriate. | Transition would be difficult but not result in severe harm; need for stability and sibling preservation. | Remanded for reconsideration; evidence insufficient to prove severe harm. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. A. F., 243 Or App 379 (2011) (evaluation of ongoing jurisdiction requires current threat of harm and totality of circumstances)
- State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. T. S., 214 Or App 184 (2007) (focus on reasonable likelihood of harm to welfare in permanency planning)
- C. Z., 236 Or App 436 (2010) (review standard for legal conclusions vs findings of fact; deference to tribunal findings)
- A. L. M., 232 Or App 13 (2009) (lack of custody order alone does not sustain jurisdiction; context matters)
- Wyatt v. State, 331 Or 335 (2000) (de novo review limitations; discretionary standard)