Department of Human Services v. N. P.
257 Or. App. 633
Or. Ct. App.2013Background
- In 2011 DHS filed a dependency petition alleging father’s substance abuse made him incompetent to parent; the juvenile court found jurisdiction and T became a ward on August 25, 2011.
- Father later completed substance-abuse treatment; by April 2012 the court found father no longer had a substance-abuse problem.
- DHS filed an amended petition (Feb 2012) alleging father had ongoing mental-health/anger problems impairing parenting; the April 2012 judgment asserted jurisdiction based on a combination of father’s personality/anger and his past substance abuse and risk of relapse.
- Father moved to terminate wardship and dismiss jurisdiction; the juvenile court denied the motion and maintained jurisdiction based in part on past substance abuse.
- On appeal the court held the evidence was sufficient to show anger/ frustration could create a present risk, but the juvenile court actually relied on past substance abuse (a condition no longer present), so the appellate court reversed and remanded and (as clarified) intended that the wardship be terminated on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHS) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellate disposition reversed only the April 2012 jurisdiction judgment or also terminated the original wardship | The reversal should be limited to the April 2012 jurisdiction judgment | The appeal challenged both the denial of termination of wardship and the April 2012 jurisdiction judgment; disposition should terminate wardship | Court clarified reversal encompassed the April 2012 judgment and, given the 2011 basis for wardship no longer obtained, remand should include termination of wardship |
| Proper standard of review for whether a parent’s condition creates a current threat of serious loss or injury under ORS 419B.100(1)(c) | Treat the question as factual and apply deferential “any evidence” review | Argues the question is legal and should be reviewed de novo for legal sufficiency | Court adopts a deferential, non-de novo sufficiency standard analogous to directed-verdict review: (1) accept juvenile court’s factual findings supported by any evidence; (2) infer implicit resolutions consistent with disposition; (3) ask whether the record was legally sufficient to permit the determination |
| Whether juvenile court erred in asserting jurisdiction based on past substance abuse when substance abuse had ceased | DHS relied on combination of personality/anger and past substance abuse risk of relapse to support jurisdiction | Father argued that the past substance abuse ceased and cannot support jurisdiction absent current evidence | Court held the juvenile court erred because it relied on a substance-abuse condition that no longer existed; reversing the April 2012 judgment was required |
| Whether evidence supported a finding that father’s anger/ frustration created a present threat | DHS contended evidence showed anger/frustration created current risk | Father disputed sufficiency and challenged standard of review | Court reiterated that, under the clarified deferential sufficiency standard, the record did contain sufficient evidence that father’s anger/frustration could present a current threat, but that was not the basis the juvenile court used |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. N. P., 255 Or. App. 51 (appellate opinion reversing April 2012 jurisdiction judgment and directing remand to terminate wardship)
- State v. S. T. S., 236 Or. App. 646 (discussing application of any-evidence standard to juvenile-jurisdiction factual findings)
- Dept. of Human Services v. A. F., 243 Or. App. 379 (examining legal sufficiency of evidence to support assertion of jurisdiction)
- Dept. of Human Services v. G. J. R., 254 Or. App. 436 (holding record contained insufficient evidence that prior convictions and failure to complete treatment posed a current risk)