Department of Human Services v. C. F.
258 Or. App. 50
| Or. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Parents (mother and father) have two young children, E (2) and B (1). DHS filed petitions alleging domestic violence between the parents, some incidents occurring in the children’s presence, placing the children under threat of harm.
- Mother admitted the allegations; father denied but did not dispute past incidents and testified the last physical altercation was at least 18 months earlier and that their situation had improved.
- Juvenile court held initial proceedings May 3 and entered a May 9 judgment addressing mother but expressly continued the jurisdictional hearing as to father to May 21.
- On May 21 the court found that continuing patterns of domestic violence and mother’s fear created a current threat to the children and entered a July 11 judgment asserting jurisdiction over the children as to father.
- Father appealed only the July 11 judgment, arguing there was insufficient evidence of a current threat because no domestic violence had occurred within 18 months prior to the hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether father’s appeal is justiciable given prior May 9 judgment | DHS: reversal would not change ward status because May 9 judgment already established jurisdiction | Father: May 9 expressly left father’s jurisdictional determination open for further hearing | Justiciable — May 9 expressly continued father’s hearing, so later ruling could change father’s status |
| Whether evidence supported jurisdiction under ORS 419B.100(1)(c) (current threat of serious loss/injury) | DHS: totality of circumstances (mother’s fear, protective order, reliance on services, limited mobility, pattern of domestic violence) shows current threat to children | Father: absence of incidents within 18 months shows no present threat; relies on D.T.C. precedent | Held for DHS — record legally sufficient to infer a current threat from ongoing pattern and mother’s fear |
| Whether past domestic violence can support current jurisdiction without recent incident | DHS: harmful environment can be established by patterns and their continuing effects on caregiver/children | Father: cites need for recent conduct (no incidents within 18 months) to show reasonable likelihood of harm | Court: Past domestic violence and its ongoing effects (fear, protective order, restricted maternal behavior) can demonstrate a current threat |
| Standard of review for sufficiency of evidence | DHS: defer to trial court’s factual findings absent clear error; view evidence in light most favorable to disposition | Father: relies on D.T.C. which applied de novo review and found insufficiency | Court: Applies deferential sufficiency review (viewing evidence in light most favorable to outcome) and distinguishes D.T.C. by review standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. N. P., 257 Or. App. 633 (discussing deferential review of juvenile jurisdiction findings)
- Dept. of Human Services v. S. P., 249 Or. App. 76 (jurisdiction focuses on child’s current conditions and reasonable likelihood of harm)
- Dept. of Human Services v. A. F., 243 Or. App. 379 (defining threat of serious loss or injury standard)
- State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Vanbuskirk, 202 Or. App. 401 (totality of circumstances test for harm to child)
- State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Smith, 316 Or. 646 (harmful environment may be established by conditions not directly involving the child)
- State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. T. S., 214 Or. App. 184 (consider totality of circumstances in jurisdictional analysis)
- Dept. of Human Services v. L. G., 251 Or. App. 1 (focus on child’s current conditions, not only past events)
- State ex rel Dept. of Human Services v. D. T. C., 231 Or. App. 544 (distinguished — applied de novo review and found insufficiency where last risk factor occurred 10 months earlier)