501 P.3d 76
Or. Ct. App.2021Background
- Infant M (six months) with developmental delays; DHS filed a dependency petition alleging six grounds (A–F). Parents appealed juvenile court jurisdiction.
- Mother tested positive for methamphetamine prenatally; meconium/urine at birth showed amphetamines and THC; she admitted multiple uses during pregnancy, declined voluntary drug screens, and gave inconsistent statements about postnatal use. M requires heightened, specialized care.
- Father missed many supervised visits, often slept during visits, had limited engagement in age‑appropriate play, and relied on mother for most care; he testified he was unaware of mother’s prenatal meth use until late in pregnancy.
- Parents lived initially in an RV, later a trailer at an RV park and had an incoming housing voucher; they repeatedly refused DHS interior inspections of the trailer.
- Father displayed escalated, loud, and semi‑threatening behavior in meetings with DHS; he admitted past drug dealing, denied recent meth use, acknowledged regular legal marijuana use, and declined a voluntary drug test.
- Juvenile court found jurisdiction on the petition; the Court of Appeals affirmed jurisdiction as to allegations A (mother’s substance abuse) and F (father’s lack of parenting skills) but reversed as to B, C, D, and E and remanded to enter judgment based only on A and F.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHS) | Defendant's Argument (Parents) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| A: Mother's substance abuse—does it support jurisdiction? | Mother’s methamphetamine use, prenatal exposure, inconsistent statements, and refusal to test create a current risk to M. | Insufficient proof mother was using at hearing and no theory linking current use to likely harm. | Yes — evidence supported jurisdiction under A. |
| F: Father lacks parenting skills—does it support jurisdiction? | Father missed visits, slept during visits, failed at basic care and lacked insight into M’s needs, creating risk given M’s special needs. | Father contests insufficiency and disputes extent of deficiencies. | Yes — evidence supported jurisdiction under F. |
| B & E: Residential instability/chaotic lifestyle—do they support jurisdiction? | Parents’ unstable RV/trailer living and missed appointments showed instability that endangered M. | By hearing, parents had a trailer with utilities and a voucher; DHS offered no specific theory showing current risk. | No — evidence insufficient to show a current, non‑speculative threat from residence/lifestyle. |
| C & D: Father’s substance abuse and volatile behavior—do they support jurisdiction? | Father’s past drug involvement, observed slurring, declined test, and escalated conduct toward DHS indicate risk. | No evidence of volatility or intoxication in child’s presence or any harm to M; DHS provided no nexus/theory of likely harm. | No — evidence insufficient to establish risk from father’s substance use or behavior. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. N. P., 257 Or App 633 (2013) (standard for viewing evidence and appellate review of juvenile dispositional findings)
- Dept. of Human Services v. C. J. T., 258 Or App 57 (2013) (jurisdiction requires totality showing child’s conditions/circumstances endanger welfare)
- Dept. of Human Services v. L. E. F., 307 Or App 254 (2020) (DHS must show nexus between parent conduct and threatened harm; anger toward DHS may not equal risk to child)
- Dept. of Human Services v. A. R. S., 258 Or App 624 (2013) (residential instability alone does not suffice for jurisdiction without a demonstrated risk of harm)
- Dept. of Human Services v. M. Q., 253 Or App 776 (2012) (jurisdiction cannot rest on speculation that past problems persist absent evidence of continued risk)
- Dept. of Human Services v. A. W., 276 Or App 276 (2016) (parent drug use insufficient for jurisdiction absent proof of effect on parenting or risk to child)
- Dept. of Human Services v. D. S. F., 246 Or App 302 (2011) (exposure to parent intoxication is not, by itself, a basis for juvenile court jurisdiction)