Department of Human Services v. A. B.
264 Or. App. 410
Or. Ct. App.2014Background
- DHS assumed juvenile-court jurisdiction previously in 2011 for similar concerns (medical/dental neglect, unsanitary home, school nonattendance, father’s meth use); jurisdiction was dismissed in July 2012 after services.
- Family recontacted DHS May 2013: missed school (including JT, who has seizures), speech and growth concerns for younger children, children often left with older siblings, unhealthy eating, and dental disease diagnosed as dental neglect.
- Parents declined timely specialist dental care for young children; mother said she would only seek care if eating was affected.
- Children taken into custody May 2013; mother had one positive methamphetamine urinalysis then, but subsequent tests were negative; CARES physician found neglect for A and JT; father later had custody with a DHS safety plan.
- Juvenile court (Aug–Sept 2013) assumed jurisdiction over three children as to mother on three grounds: (A) mother’s substance abuse impaired care, (B) failure to provide medical/dental/educational needs, and (C) failure to provide preventive/needed dental care; court disbelieved mother’s assurances and cited a pattern of relapse when DHS is not involved.
- On appeal the State moved to dismiss as moot after DHS later terminated jurisdiction (March 2014); the court denied dismissal because the jurisdictional findings could have probable adverse collateral consequences in a pending custody matter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (State/DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appeal is moot | Mother: termination of jurisdiction moots appeal | State: findings could be moot because jurisdiction terminated | Court: Not moot — probable adverse collateral consequence to pending custody; appeal proceeds |
| Whether DHS proved mother’s substance abuse at hearing | Mother: only one positive UA (May); later UAs negative; assessment did not refer her to treatment — no current substance-abuse problem | DHS: positive UA and pattern of concerns support finding of substance use risk | Court: Reversed as to substance-abuse ground — one past positive UA did not prove current substance-abuse problem at hearing |
| Whether facts supported jurisdiction under ORS 419B.100(1)(c) (endangerment) | Mother: circumstances had improved by hearing (children with father, attending school, mother participating in services); improvements show no current reasonable likelihood of harm | DHS: improvements due largely to removal; prior history, repeated neglect (including dental), mother’s minimization/lack of insight create reasonable likelihood of future harm if returned | Court: Affirmed jurisdiction on non-substance-abuse grounds — totality shows reasonable likelihood of harm and need for court protection |
| Whether court improperly relied on “lack of insight” rationale | Mother: “lack of insight” mirrors disapproved “failure to internalize” standard | DHS: caseworker tied mother’s minimization of severity to likelihood of recurrence; focus is on likely future conduct | Court: Distinguishes J.M.; upholds finding that mother’s minimization/limited insight supported risk inference and jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. B. A., 263 Or App 675 (2014) (collateral-consequence standard for mootness)
- Dept. of Human Services v. G. D. W., 353 Or 25 (2012) (jurisdictional findings can have collateral consequences affecting custody)
- Dept. of Human Services v. C. J. T., 258 Or App 57 (2013) (endangerment standard: reasonable likelihood of harm; nexus requirement)
- Dept. of Human Services v. M. Q., 253 Or App 776 (2012) (past substance abuse insufficient to prove current risk without evidence)
- Dept. of Human Services v. J. M., 260 Or App 261 (2013) (rejects impermissible “failure to internalize” inference)
- State ex rel Dept. of Human Services v. Smith, 338 Or 58 (2005) (no requirement parent provide care entirely independently)
Outcome: Motion to dismiss appeal denied; judgment remanded with substance-abuse jurisdictional ground vacated and remaining jurisdictional findings affirmed.