Department of Human Services v. M. Q., 253 Or. App. 776

DHS petitioned for jurisdiction over the child in 2005 based on mother’s mental-health and substance-abuse history and “history of failed parenting.”
An amended petition added father; in January 2006 the court entered jurisdictional judgment based on father’s chemical-abuse problems and related endangerment; the court also noted father had two other kids in state care.
Over time the court continued jurisdiction, with findings that father failed to complete court-ordered treatment and to participate in UA testing, while he remained homeless and had intermittent involvement in treatment.
In 2011–2012, DHS again sought jurisdiction; the jurisdictional hearing focused on father’s current circumstances (homelessness, lack of a stable plan, missed UA) and mother’s separate status; father testified to sobriety but admitted past arrest and missed UA.
At the jurisdictional hearing the court relied on a new, oral basis—based on past wardship and failure to complete treatment with a history of criminal activity—to assert jurisdiction over father, while dismissing homelessness as a standalone basis.
The court ultimately reversed the jurisdictional judgment as to father, holding that the evidence did not show current danger or a nexus between past conduct and present risk; the court affirmed jurisdiction as to mother.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was current danger to the child justifying jurisdiction over father	DHS argues past meth use and criminal history create present risk	Father’s past issues and noncurrent status imply ongoing risk	No; lack of current danger; reversed as to father
Whether a nexus exists between father's past conduct and current risk to the child	Past wardship and failure to complete treatment establish nexus	Past behavior connected to risk; laboratory of current circumstances supports jurisdiction	No sufficient nexus; jurisdiction not supported by evidence
Whether evidence of homelessness and lack of stable housing can support jurisdiction	Homelessness plus history demonstrates risk to child	Homelessness alone does not prove current danger; must be tied to future risk	Homelessness did not constitute the basis; no independent basis found
Whether credibility issues about father’s sobriety affect jurisdiction	Inconsistent statements and missed UA support ongoing drug use	Disbelief of sobriety does not prove current drug use without direct evidence	Discrediting testimony alone does not prove current drug use; insufficient evidence

Dept. of Human Services v. C. Z., 236 Or App 436 (2010) (requires nexus between parent’s behavior and risk to child; current threat needed)
State v. Reed, 339 Or 239 (2005) (disbelief of a witness does not add affirmative evidence for state)
Dept. of Human Services v. S. P., 249 Or App 76 (2012) (no inference of ongoing risk from past condition without current evidence)
State ex rel Dept. of Human Services v. J. S., 219 Or App 231 (2008) (documented dangers of methamphetamine abuse to child welfare)
Dept. of Human Services v. J. H., 248 Or App 118 (2012) (disposition appropriate when jurisdictional basis lacks support)
Vanbuskirk, 202 Or App 401 (2005) (central question: whether totality of circumstances reasonably indicates harm)