Department of Human Services v. A. R. S., 258 Or. App. 624

Child (age 5 at review) had been a court ward since 2007; placed with maternal grandmother (foster mother) since 2009. Father returned to Mexico in 2010.
Jurisdiction originally based on mother's substance abuse, exposure in utero, residential instability, leaving child with grandmother, unsafe partners, and prior relinquishment of two children.
Mother completed substance-abuse treatment and had been sober ~33 months by the review hearing; she lived in a room DHS labeled "safe and appropriate," attended community college, and began counseling recently.
At the December 2012 review hearing mother and child moved to dismiss the wardship; DHS argued two jurisdictional bases remained: residential instability and mother’s choice of unsafe partners.
The juvenile court denied dismissal, found mother had made insufficient progress, continued reunification as the permanency plan, and ordered placement with father; appellants appealed.
The appellate court reversed, holding DHS bore the burden to prove the original jurisdictional facts persisted and that the record did not show a current, reasonably likely risk of serious harm from the two remaining bases.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether wardship should have been dismissed at review hearing	Mother: conditions giving rise to jurisdiction had been ameliorated (sobriety, safer living, counseling)	DHS: residential instability and unsafe-partner choices persist and continue to pose risk	Reversed: DHS failed to prove by preponderance that those conditions posed a current, reasonably likely threat of serious harm, so wardship must be dismissed
Who bears burden at review hearing to continue jurisdiction	Mother: DHS must prove persistence of jurisdictional facts by preponderance	DHS: mother, as movant, must prove facts ceased to exist	Held: DHS (proponent of continuing jurisdiction) bears burden to prove persistence by preponderance
Whether residential instability alone supported continued jurisdiction	Mother: current housing was safe and no evidence showed harm risk	DHS: multiple residences and planned moves show instability posing risk	Held: Residential instability, without evidence it creates a risk of harm, is insufficient to support jurisdiction
Whether mother’s relationship with Antonio justified continued jurisdiction	Mother: she left relationship and acted to protect child; no evidence Antonio was violent or presented risk	DHS: Antonio’s threatening behavior indicated unsafe partner choice	Held: Evidence showed mother ended the relationship and no pattern or history established a current likely risk—reliance on that relationship was speculative

Dept. of Human Services v. A. R. S., 249 Or. App. 603 (reversed permanency judgment where court required parent to parent independently)
Dept. of Human Services v. A. R. S., 256 Or. App. 653 (reversed permanency judgment for reliance on unalleged personality-disorder basis)
Dept. of Human Services v. N. P., 257 Or. App. 633 (standard for reviewing juvenile court jurisdictional determinations)
Dept. of Human Services v. D. M., 248 Or. App. 683 (motion to dismiss at review hearing: court examines whether original conditions persist)
State v. A. L. M., 232 Or. App. 13 (dismissal where no evidence at review hearing of reasonable likelihood of harm)
Dept. of Human Services v. A. F., 243 Or. App. 379 (continued jurisdiction requires current threat of serious loss or injury)
Dept. of Human Services v. M. H., 256 Or. App. 306 (residential instability alone insufficient absent proof of risk)
State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Gates, 96 Or. App. 365 (review-limited-to-persistence principle at review hearing)