Dept. of Human Services v. T. H., 496 P.3d 704

Two daughters: AM (born 2011) and AL (born 2013). Douglas County juvenile court held AM dependent because it found, by a preponderance, that father sexually abused AM about four years earlier; it held AL dependent based on risk created by that abuse and mother’s inability to protect.
The case proceeded to a contested dependency trial that turned on a credibility contest: AM testified she was abused; father denied the abuse; mother’s testimony was seen as less credible.
The juvenile court expressly found AM credible under the preponderance standard, noted it had reasonable doubt under a criminal standard, and found insufficient evidence that AL herself was abused.
Father appealed and sought de novo review of the juvenile court’s factual finding (especially the sexual-abuse finding), acknowledging that his success depended on de novo review.
The Court of Appeals declined to exercise its discretion to conduct de novo review under ORS 19.415(3)(b) / ORAP 5.40(8), concluding the juvenile court made express demeanor-based credibility findings, the dispute was a close credibility contest, and the record contained evidence adequate to support the juvenile court’s findings. The dependency judgments were affirmed.
The court observed that dependency proceedings are protective rather than punitive and noted the children’s belief that abuse occurred and their entitlement to services.

Issue	DHS (Plaintiff)	Father (Defendant)	Held
Whether the Court of Appeals should exercise its discretion to conduct de novo review of the juvenile court’s factual findings (esp. sexual-abuse finding).	De novo review not warranted; discretionary factors weigh against it.	Requests de novo review because the sexual-abuse finding was outcome-determinative and allegedly unsupported.	Declined de novo review: juvenile court made express credibility findings in a close credibility contest; ordinary appellate deference applies.
Whether the record supports the juvenile court’s finding that father sexually abused AM.	Record contains evidence sufficient to support the finding by a preponderance.	Denies abuse; contends evidence insufficient absent de novo review.	On deferential review, the record was legally sufficient to permit the juvenile court’s finding; affirmed.
Whether dependency jurisdiction over AL was supported given no finding that AL was abused.	Father’s abuse of AM created a risk to AL and mother could not protect AL.	Argues insufficient evidence of risk to AL.	Juvenile court’s assessment (risk to AL from abuse of AM plus mother’s inability to protect) supported jurisdiction; affirmed.

Bush v. Bush, 297 Or. App. 699 (2019) (exercised de novo review where trial court’s crucial factual finding did not comport with the record).
Dept. of Human Services v. B. B., 248 Or. App. 715 (2012) (exercised discretion to make new factual findings when trial court findings conflicted with uncontroverted evidence).
Dept. of Human Services v. N. P., 257 Or. App. 633 (2013) (standard for appellate review of juvenile dependency decisions when not conducting de novo review).
State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. G. P., 131 Or. App. 313 (1994) (even on de novo review, appellate court gives deference to trial court credibility findings depending on opportunity to observe witnesses).
Dept. of Human Services v. T. L. H. S., 292 Or. App. 708 (2018) (juvenile dependency proceedings are protective rather than punitive).