Department of Human Services v. C. M.
284 Or. App. 521
Or. Ct. App.2017Background
- Parents (father and mother) lived with their 4-year-old son D and 14-year-old K. On Jan 16 father tackled and choked mother, struck K, knocked K’s phone away, and shoved K into the recliner where D was sleeping. An eyewitness (Albertson) and others testified about the incident.
- DHS intervened the same evening; mother initially agreed verbally to keep father away from the children but later returned to the family home with D while father was present. DHS obtained protective custody and placed D in foster care.
- DHS petitioned for jurisdiction under ORS 419B.100(1)(c) alleging, inter alia, that mother and father exposed D to domestic violence (¶8(B) and ¶8(E)), that mother failed to engage in services and continued to allow contact between father and D (¶8(C)), and other allegations about parental conduct.
- Juvenile court took jurisdiction based on domestic-violence allegations against both parents and mother’s failure to engage in services. Father appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for jurisdiction and the admission of hearsay (a statement by D to a DHS caseworker).
- The Court of Appeals reviewed for legal sufficiency (no de novo review) and affirmed. It rejected father’s challenge to jurisdiction on domestic-violence grounds, declined to consider an unpreserved challenge to ¶8(C), and held any error in admitting D’s out-of-court statement was harmless. A separate alleged omission in the amended judgment was later corrected and is moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether D was "exposed" to domestic violence such that jurisdiction was proper (¶8(B), ¶8(E)) | Father: D was asleep and did not witness violence; no credible evidence of exposure or current risk. | DHS/Father (responding): Presence in chaotic, threatening environment alone suffices; exposure creates a reasonable likelihood of harm. | Court: "Exposed" includes being physically present in the violent environment; eyewitness and DHS testimony support a nexus and current risk; jurisdiction affirmed. |
| Whether a single episode of violence can support current risk of harm | Father: A single incident cannot establish ongoing/current risk. | DHS: Single violent episode that endangered child and showed parents’ inability/willingness to protect supports jurisdiction. | Court: Single severe episode plus parents’ conduct (mother’s return, lack of services) sufficed to show current risk; single incident can support jurisdiction. |
| Whether mother’s alleged failure to engage in services (¶8(C)) can support jurisdiction when services were offered pre-jurisdiction | Father: Mother’s refusal to accept services before court jurisdiction cannot be the basis for jurisdiction. | DHS: Argues father's challenge was unpreserved; court could consider mother-related findings where intertwined. | Court: Father failed to preserve this specific argument in the trial court; court declined to consider the claim on appeal. |
| Admissibility of D’s out-of-court statement to DHS caseworker | Father: Statement was inadmissible hearsay and not covered by a hearsay exception. | DHS: Preservation dispute; if error, it was harmless because statement was cumulative. | Court: Objection preserved; assuming error, admission was harmless because statement was cumulative of other evidence; outcome unaffected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. N. P., 257 Or App 633 (articulates standard of review for juvenile dependency sufficiency)
- Dept. of Human Services v. C. J. T., 258 Or App 57 (defines ORS 419B.100(1)(c) endangerment standard)
- Dept. of Human Services v. C. Z., 236 Or App 436 (totality-of-circumstances and reasonable likelihood of harm inquiry)
- Dept. of Human Services v. K. V., 276 Or App 782 (DHS burden: nexus and present risk of harm)
- Dept. of Human Services v. C. F., 258 Or App 50 (domestic violence in presence of child supports jurisdiction)
- State v. S. T. S., 236 Or App 646 (testimony that physical violence can cause inadvertent child injury supports risk finding)
- Dept. of Human Services v. G. D. W., 353 Or 25 (harmless-error standard for evidentiary error)
- State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335 (preservation rule requiring specific trial-level objection)