Department of Human Services v. S. D. I
259 Or. App. 116
Or. Ct. App.2013Background
- The juvenile court exercised jurisdiction under ORS 419B.100(l)(c) due to risk of psychological harm to A if moved to mother without a transition.
- A, born 1999, had been separated from mother for several years; A lived with paternal relatives since 2012.
- Mother had a history of methamphetamine use and previously lost custody in Washington; she later completed treatment and obtained housing.
- DHS filed a second amended petition alleging, among other things, that mother had no contact with A and needed DHS help to establish a meaningful relationship.
- At the jurisdictional hearing, mother proposed immediate custody with a planned transition; DHS caseworker testified it would likely harm A psychologically to transfer immediately.
- The juvenile court found jurisdiction warranted for lack of contact and the need for a transition plan, but the court later reversed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of caseworker opinion | A argues the opinion required expert psychology qualification. | DHS contends the caseworker testified as an expert. | Assumed admissibility; merits not resolved as to ultimate endangerment. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for DHS assistance allegation | Mother contends the record supports lack of contact and need for DHS help to establish relationship. | DHS asserts sufficient evidence of need for assistance to establish relationship. | Insufficient evidence that the allegation proves endangerment under 419B.100(l)(c). |
| Endangerment by immediate transfer | Immediate transfer would endanger A by causing serious loss or injury. | Immediate transfer could cause psychological harm without a transition plan; risk supported. | State failed to prove the harm would be of the severity justifying jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. S. C. S., 290 P.3d 903 (Or. App. 2012) (requires proof of endangered welfare by a preponderance depending on severity and likelihood)
- Dept. of Human Services v. A. F., 259 P.3d 957 (Or. App. 2011) (insufficient evidence of specific harms from alleged risks)
- Dept. of Human Services v. D. M., 275 P.3d 971 (Or. App. 2012) (difficulty of placement moves not inherently empowering jurisdiction for serious detriment)
- State ex rel Dept. of Human Services v. Shugars, 121 P.3d 702 (Or. App. 2005) (exposure to danger requires more than general threat of loss; must show serious risk)
- State ex rel SOSCF v. Stillman, 36 P.3d 490 (Or. 2001) (child anxiety regarding future not sufficient for serious detriment)
- Dept. of Human Services v. C. M. P., 260 P.3d 654 (Or. App. 2011) (challenge to whether nonfrightening risks justify state intervention)