Dept. of Human Services v. L. E. F.
307 Or. App. 254
Or. Ct. App.2020Background
- Parents divorced in 2013 with joint custody of daughters B and D; children primarily lived with mother and spent weekends with father.
- In May 2019 B reported that father slapped and threw her to the ground; DHS investigated and filed juvenile dependency petitions; children were removed to mother after a shelter hearing.
- Father had separately filed a domestic-relations modification seeking sole legal custody before DHS intervention; the juvenile cases were consolidated with that domestic-relations case.
- Factfinding occurred over two days; the court admitted mother’s single allegation by her admission and held an evidentiary hearing as to father, receiving testimony from the children, DHS worker, evaluators, and others.
- The juvenile court found father had alcohol abuse, used inappropriate discipline (including admitted slapping of B and an alleged dragging of D), and had anger-control problems, and it asserted jurisdiction under ORS 419B.100(1)(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHS) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for juvenile jurisdiction | Evidence (children’s testimony, evaluator/psychologist testimony, father’s admissions and credibility problems) established current risk and connection to harm | Evidence insufficient to show a current, non-speculative threat; mother’s admission alone cannot justify jurisdiction | Affirmed: record legally sufficient; court credited children and evaluators; father’s credibility harmed his defense |
| Jurisdictional hearing beyond 60-day statutory deadline | Good cause justified short rescheduling while court was engaged in another trial; delay was only seven judicial days | Trial date outside ORS 419B.305(1) deprived father of due process | Affirmed: court’s good-cause finding supported brief delay; no due-process violation |
| Denial of parenting time (due-process claim) | Not properly preserved in juvenile case; related to domestic relations proceedings | Juvenile court’s actions deprived father of fundamental liberty interest in childrearing | Not reviewed on appeal: father failed to preserve the argument in the juvenile record; appellate court declined to address it |
| Requirement that domestic-relations modification proceed while dependency open | Consolidation does not merge procedural/substantive law; domestic-relations matters remain separate | Proceeding with modification while dependency open violated father’s due-process rights | Not addressed on merits: argument not preserved in juvenile appeal; father must pursue remedies in domestic-relations case |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. A. B., 362 Or 412 (2018) (mootness and appellate review principles)
- Dept. of Human Services v. C. L. H., 283 Or App 313 (2017) (deference to juvenile court factual findings when supported by evidence)
- Dept. of Human Services v. D. A. N., 258 Or App 64 (2013) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in dependency cases)
- Dept. of Human Services v. N. P., 257 Or App 633 (2013) (appellate approach to viewing evidence in light most favorable to juvenile court)
- Dept. of Human Services v. C. J. T., 258 Or App 57 (2013) (definition of "endangered"—current threat of serious loss or injury)
- Dept. of Human Services v. M. Q., 253 Or App 776 (2012) (state must prove current, non-speculative risk; past endangerment alone insufficient)
- G. A. C. v. State ex rel. Juv. Dept., 219 Or App 1 (2008) (analysis of when parental discipline qualifies as abuse/inappropriate discipline)
- State v. Tatarinov, 211 Or App 280 (2007) (short, justified trial delay does not necessarily violate due process)