Department of Human Services v. C. J. T.
258 Or. App. 57
| Or. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Mother was custodial parent of three children (ages 1, 9, 10). DHS issued a protective action May 24, 2012, and filed dependency petitions June 4, 2012.
- DHS alleged four grounds for jurisdiction, but the juvenile court rested jurisdiction solely on the allegation that mother’s alcohol and/or controlled-substance use (focused on marijuana) interfered with parenting.
- Evidence: children and two fathers testified they smelled or saw marijuana in mother’s house; testimony placed last use in March or April 2012. Mother testified last used in March/April 2012.
- Mother submitted three July 2012 drug tests; two negative and one diluted specimen. Jurisdictional hearing occurred July 30, 2012.
- Trial court found the substance-use allegation proven by a preponderance of the evidence and took jurisdiction. Mother appealed challenging sufficiency of evidence of current use and nexus to present risk.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether past marijuana use justified jurisdiction under ORS 419B.100(1)(c) | Mother: DHS failed to show use after April 2012 or any current risk; reliance on past use is speculative | DHS: Past use and reports from children and others support finding of risk to welfare | Reversed — past marijuana use without evidence of current use or nexus to present harm insufficient for jurisdiction |
| Whether DHS proved a nexus between mother’s substance use and a current threat of serious loss or injury | Mother: No evidence linking past use to neglectful acts or present threat; other allegations were found insufficient | DHS: Exposure and reports create reasonable likelihood of harm (court below accepted this) | Reversed — record lacks evidence connecting past use to a contemporaneous risk of serious harm |
| Whether negative July 2012 drug tests defeat finding of current use | Mother: Negative tests (two negatives, one diluted) support no current use | DHS: Argued overall testimonial and circumstantial evidence show risk | Court: Negative tests and timing of last admitted use showed no legally sufficient proof of use at hearing time |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. N. P., 257 Or App 633 (discussing standard of review and viewing evidence in light most favorable to trial court)
- Dept. of Human Services v. M. Q., 253 Or App 776 (defining "endanger" as a current threat of serious loss or injury)
- Dept. of Human Services v. C. Z., 236 Or App 436 (rejecting jurisdiction where marijuana use record lacked evidence of risk to children)
- Dept. of Human Services v. D. S. F., 246 Or App 302 (requiring nexus between intoxication effects and risk to child)
- Dept. of Human Services v. A. F., 243 Or App 379 (risk must be present at time of hearing, not speculative)
- Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or 485 (presumption that court made factual findings consistent with its conclusions)
- SAIF v. Donahue-Birran, 195 Or App 173 (commentary on inconsistent phrasing such as "and/or")