Department of Human Services v. K. C. F.
282 Or. App. 12
Or. Ct. App.2016Background
- Parents married; DHS filed dependency petition after therapist and DHS caseworkers received reports father made frequent threats (suicide/homicide) and engaged in emotionally controlling behavior; no physical abuse alleged during the reported period.
- Father had a history of substance abuse but testified to recent abstinence, counseling attendance, and negative UAs; he admitted isolated past physical control of mother many years earlier.
- Mother reported mixed views: sometimes minimizing risk, sometimes expressing concern; she and father both said children missed father during separation.
- Older child (A, age 11) witnessed arguments, described some threats, developed a “safety plan,” and showed signs of role reversal; younger child (B, 18 months) withdrew after a water-throwing incident.
- Juvenile court assumed jurisdiction under ORS 419B.100(1)(c) based on domestic violence (emotional abuse), father’s mental-health/substance history, and mother’s alleged failure to protect; ordered evaluations and services.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding DHS failed to prove a current, reasonably likely threat of serious loss or injury to the children.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS proved jurisdiction under ORS 419B.100(1)(c) — current endangerment | Father’s ongoing emotional abuse, threats, past physical control, lack of remediation, and parental denial create a present risk to the children | Evidence shows no current physical violence, father recently sober and in treatment, limited duration of harmful conduct, and children not imminently at risk | Reversed: evidence insufficient to show current, reasonably likely threat of serious harm |
| Whether mother’s alleged failure to protect justified jurisdiction | Mother minimized risk and urged reconciliation, so children remain unsafe until mother remedies protective failures | Mother took some protective steps; separation and services were in progress; insufficient proof her conduct creates present danger | Reversed: insufficient proof mother’s conduct creates present, reasonably likely risk |
| Whether observed parental conduct produced serious harm to children | DHS: incidents (threats, water-throwing, role reversal in A) and general harms from domestic abuse justify intervention | Parents: incidents isolated or historical; children’s testimony and behavior do not show serious, likely injury | Reversed: general evidence of effect does not establish the type/degree/duration of harm required for jurisdiction |
| Whether past conduct and speculation can support jurisdiction | DHS relied on past threats and lack of treatment as indicia of continuing risk | Parents argued state must prove risk existing at hearing; speculation is insufficient | Reversed: jurisdiction cannot rest on speculation or past conduct alone; must show current risk likely to be realized |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. A. F., 243 Or. App. 379 (requirement that endangerment be a current threat of serious loss or injury)
- Dept. of Human Services v. N. P., 257 Or. App. 633 (appellate review treats evidence in light most favorable to trial court)
- Dept. of Human Services v. D. S. F., 246 Or. App. 302 (nexus required between parental conduct and child harm)
- Dept. of Human Services v. S. D. I., 259 Or. App. 116 (state must prove both severity and reasonable likelihood of harm)
- Dept. of Human Services v. D. M. H., 272 Or. App. 327 (state must prove threat exists at time of hearing)
- State ex rel Dept. of Human Services v. D. T. C., 231 Or. App. 544 (parental misconduct that is not inherently dangerous may not justify intervention)
- Dept. of Human Services v. M. Q., 253 Or. App. 776 (clarifying endangerment standard)
- Dept. of Human Services v. C. F., 258 Or. App. 50 (domestic violence can endanger children when untreated and ongoing)