383 P.3d 417
Or. Ct. App.2016Background
- Mother challenged Oregon juvenile court jurisdiction to make child N a ward, arguing Oregon lacked jurisdiction under the UCCJEA because she and N had lived in Washington their whole lives.
- DHS alleged mother and N effectively had been living in Gaston, Oregon since fall 2014 and that mother kept a Washington address as a ruse.
- Mother moved to dismiss before the jurisdictional hearing based on UCCJEA home-state arguments; the juvenile court denied the motion.
- The juvenile court denied dismissal by applying Oregon venue statute (ORS 419B.118) and found residency sufficient for venue (child spent substantial time in county, toys/clothes present, mother listed a local address in filings).
- DHS conceded the juvenile court relied on the venue standard but argued on appeal that the court should be presumed to have resolved factual disputes in favor of Oregon jurisdiction under the UCCJEA.
- The appellate court held the juvenile court erred by applying venue law instead of the UCCJEA and vacated and remanded for application of the proper UCCJEA test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Oregon has jurisdiction under the UCCJEA | Mother: Oregon is not home state; Washington is home; dismiss under UCCJEA | DHS: Child effectively lived in Oregon; juvenile court findings on residency support jurisdiction | Court: Juvenile court erred; must apply UCCJEA, cannot presume findings from venue analysis |
| Whether venue findings suffice to resolve UCCJEA home-state dispute | Mother: Venue analysis is legally insufficient to establish subject-matter jurisdiction | DHS: Court implicitly resolved facts favoring Oregon; appellate presumption should apply | Court: Presumption inapplicable because trial court used wrong legal standard |
| Whether appellate court may resolve home-state facts in first instance | Mother: Facts not resolved; remand needed for proper UCCJEA factual findings | DHS: Urged affirmance by presuming favorable factual resolution | Court: Appellate court will not resolve contested home-state facts; remand required |
| Proper legal standard for custody jurisdiction | Mother: Apply ORS 109.701–109.834 (UCCJEA) to determine jurisdiction | DHS: Relied on venue statute ORS 419B.118 at trial; on appeal urged UCCJEA presumption | Court: UCCJEA is exclusive jurisdictional basis; trial court must apply it on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. S. C. S., 253 Or App 319 (discussing UCCJEA applicability to custody/dependency)
- Dept. of Human Services v. G. G., 234 Or App 652 (UCCJEA application in juvenile dependency context)
- Campbell v. Tardio, 261 Or App 78 (jurisdiction v. venue distinction under UCCJEA)
- Kohring v. Ballard, 355 Or 297 (distinguishing jurisdiction from venue)
- Dept. of Human Services v. N. B., 261 Or App 466 (presumption that trial court resolved facts consistent with conclusion in some contexts)
- Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or 485 (source for presumption about unstated factual findings)
- State v. Ellis, 252 Or App 382 (presumption inapplicable when trial court applied incorrect legal analysis)