Dept. of Human Services v. K. W., 476 P.3d 107

DHS filed a dependency petition for H in 2018 alleging mother’s limited cognitive abilities made her unable to safely parent H and initially that father was unavailable.
Father was later located in Louisiana; DHS amended the petition and juvenile court asserted jurisdiction over father based on his admissions; mother’s allegations were set for trial.
At the May 2019 jurisdictional hearing mother chose to admit facts so H could remain with her through the school year; she admitted that placement with father required DHS oversight and the court entered dependency jurisdiction over mother based on those admissions.
Mother appealed, arguing (for the first time) that her admissions did not support dependency jurisdiction and invoking Dept. of Human Services v. D. D. to excuse preservation; DHS argued D. D. was wrongly decided and had been implicitly overruled by C. M. H.
After jurisdiction was taken, juvenile court later dismissed the dependency and terminated wardship based on reports from Louisiana; DHS moved to dismiss the appeal as moot, but the court held the appeal was not moot due to possible collateral consequences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a challenge to a juvenile court’s dependency finding can be raised at any time (i.e., whether D. D. excused preservation)	Mother: D. D. is correct — dependency jurisdiction is tantamount to subject-matter jurisdiction and thus can be challenged at any time	DHS: D. D. was wrongly decided and is irreconcilable with later authority (C. M. H.); dependency jurisdiction is distinct from subject-matter jurisdiction and requires preservation	Court: Overruled D. D.; C. M. H. correctly disentangled subject-matter jurisdiction from dependency jurisdiction; preservation required for dependency challenges
Whether mother’s factual admissions established dependency jurisdiction	Mother: Her admission (agreement DHS oversight was needed for placement) was insufficient to show current risk required by ORS 419B.100(1)(c)	DHS/H.: Mother admitted the facts and invited jurisdiction; she cannot now challenge the jurisdictional ruling on appeal	Court: Mother invited the jurisdictional ruling and failed to preserve an objection; judgment affirmed
Whether the appeal was moot after later dismissal of dependency	DHS: Dismissal renders the appeal moot because reversal would have no practical effect	Mother: Collateral consequences (custody/parenting litigation) mean reversal could improve her position; appeal is justiciable	Court: Appeal not moot; collateral effects sufficient to preserve review

Dept. of Human Services v. D. D., 238 Or App 134 (2010) (held a dependency challenge could be raised at any time; court here overruled that aspect)
Dept. of Human Services v. C. M. H., 301 Or App 487 (2019) (disentangled subject-matter jurisdiction from a juvenile court’s assertion of dependency jurisdiction)
State ex rel. Juv. Dept. v. Gates, 96 Or App 365 (1989) (court must consider jurisdictional issues even if parties do not raise them)
State v. Terry, 333 Or 163 (2001) (defines subject-matter jurisdiction as statutory/constitutional authority to adjudicate a subject area)
State v. Scurlock, 286 Or 277 (1979) (juvenile court subject-matter jurisdiction exists prior to merits determinations in delinquency matters)
Delaney v. State of Oregon, 58 Or App 442 (1982) (juvenile court had exclusive original jurisdiction where triggering events occurred while defendant was a juvenile)
Dept. of Human Services v. A. B., 362 Or 412 (2018) (explains mootness standard and collateral consequences for dependency appeals)
Dept. of Human Services v. S. J. M., 364 Or 37 (2018) (discusses statutes and protections that apply once juvenile court asserts dependency jurisdiction)