Department of Human Services v. M. H.
256 Or. App. 306
| Or. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Mother and father appeal juvenile court judgments asserting jurisdiction over their daughter V and placement with DHS for endangerment concerns.
- The jurisdictional petition referenced multiple allegations, including the father’s prior sex offenses and mother’s history of unstable housing and mental health issues.
- Trial court found two allegations unsupported by evidence but ultimately upheld jurisdiction under the statutory framework; remanded to omit those findings.
- ORS 109.741/109.704 govern UCCJEA home-state and custody jurisdiction, with the court not requiring personal jurisdiction over V for initial custody determinations.
- Court concluded V’s home state was Oregon, thus meeting jurisdictional requirements even though V was born in Oregon but briefly located in California at birth.
- Court did not conduct de novo review but relied on findings supported by the record; ultimately affirmed jurisdiction but remanded to remove findings 2(c) and (h).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court had personal and subject-matter jurisdiction over V | Mother argues lack of personal jurisdiction since V was taken in California | DHS contends UCCJEA and ORS 419B.803 confer jurisdiction; home state was Oregon | Yes; jurisdiction proper under ORS 109.741 and ORS 419B.803; personal jurisdiction over V not required under UCCJEA |
| Whether DHS proved jurisdiction under ORS 419B.100 based on nexus to risk of harm | Parents argue no nexus between past offenses and risk to V; insufficient evidence | DHS presented expert testimony showing risk from father’s sex-offender history | Some alleged grounds (2(c) and (h)) unsupported; remaining allegations establish jurisdiction; remand to omit 2(c) and (h) findings |
| Whether aggravating circumstances were properly found | Father argues aggravation violates due process and is unsupported | State asserts aggravation supported by evidence but may be harmless if reunification efforts remained | Aggravated finding is harmless where court retained obligation to pursue reunification; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Kennedy, 66 Or App 89 (1983) ( discusses non-resident child custody temp custody and personal jurisdiction)
- Dept. of Human Services v. C. Z., 236 Or App 436 (2010) (defines standard of review for jurisdictional findings in dependency cases)
- Dept. of Human Services v. G. G., 234 Or App 652 (2010) (UCCJEA applicability to dependency proceedings)
- B. B., 248 Or App 715 (2012) (de novo review standard for risk of harm; remand analysis on remediated risk)