Department of Human Services v. B. A.
263 Or. App. 675
Or. Ct. App.2014Background
- Parents (mother and father) live together with their two-year-old daughter (T). Mother admitted she is an alcoholic and that her substance abuse creates a potential risk if she is left alone with T.
- Father lacked an order granting him sole legal custody at the time of the juvenile-court hearing; court found that without such an order father could not reliably prevent mother from gaining control of T and breaching their safety plan.
- Parents had implemented a voluntary safety plan (mother would not be left alone with T), which they argued removed any present risk to the child.
- Juvenile court assumed jurisdiction under ORS 419B.100(1)(c) and established wardship based on mother’s unresolved substance abuse and father’s lack of sole-custody authority.
- After parents appealed, father obtained a sole-custody order and the juvenile court dismissed jurisdiction and terminated the wardship; the State moved to dismiss the appeal as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal of jurisdiction and termination of wardship renders appeal moot | Parents: No — collateral consequences (DHS records, founded referral, disclosure to third parties, social stigma, employment impact) make the dispute live | State/DHS: Yes — dismissal removes adverse interests; records are confidential and collateral effects are speculative | Appeal is moot; dismissal of jurisdiction ordinarily renders such appeals moot unless concrete collateral consequences shown |
| Whether lack of a custody order alone can support jurisdiction | Parents: Safety plan prevents harm; father’s lack of custody order does not justify jurisdiction | State: Lack of sole custody plus mother’s substance abuse meant father could not reliably protect child | Court: Lack of custody alone is insufficient, but combined with evidence mother posed danger justified jurisdiction initially |
| Whether speculative collateral consequences suffice to preserve appeal | Parents: Potential future disclosures and DHS actions are probable collateral consequences | State: Any such consequences are speculative and not likely; DHS records are confidential; reversal would have little practical effect | Mere possibility is insufficient; party asserting collateral effects must show probable adverse consequences |
| Whether vacatur of underlying judgment is warranted after dismissal | Parents: Seek vacatur to prevent DHS consequences | State: Vacatur is extraordinary and unjustified here | Court rejects vacatur; extraordinary relief requires equitable entitlement not shown |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hemenway, 353 Or 498 (Oregon Supreme Court) (courts lack authority to decide moot cases)
- Dept. of Human Services v. C. W. J., 260 Or App 180 (Or. Ct. App.) (termination of jurisdiction/wardship ordinarily renders underlying appeal moot)
- State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. L. B., 233 Or App 360 (Or. Ct. App.) (collateral practical effects from abuse/neglect findings can preserve appeal)
- State v. S. T. S., 236 Or App 646 (Or. Ct. App.) (domestic-violence findings can create probable collateral consequences preserving appeal)
- State v. A. L. M., 232 Or App 13 (Or. Ct. App.) (lack of custody order without other evidence of present danger is insufficient for jurisdiction)
- Brumnett v. PSRB, 315 Or 402 (Oregon Supreme Court) (a mere possibility of collateral consequences does not prevent mootness)