Dept. of Human Services v. S. G. T.
316 Or. App. 442
Or. Ct. App.2021Background
- X was seven months old at trial; DHS sought dependency jurisdiction on four bases (two targeting mother: substance abuse and a "volatile and erratic household").
- Mother has a documented history of alcohol use disorder (diagnosed March 2019 as "severe," DUII in July 2019, "moderate" diagnosis March 2020) and had engaged in treatment for ~2 months by November 2020.
- Between May and September 2020 mother testified she drank as often as nightly; there is no evidence she drank to intoxication or failed to care for X after X’s birth.
- The triggering event was the night of September 6, 2020: father heavily intoxicated, grandmother intoxicated and banging on a locked bathroom door while father bathed X; mother had had a couple shots, checked on X, asked father for X, and police ultimately had father hand X to mother; grandmother later moved out.
- The juvenile court made explicit findings (e.g., mother intoxicated that night; parents physically struggling over the infant) that the appellate court found unsupported by the record.
- The Court of Appeals reversed: stripping out unsupported findings, the evidence was legally insufficient to establish dependency jurisdiction as to mother.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHS) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mother’s pattern of substance abuse (including alcohol) impairs her ability to safely parent | Mother’s documented alcohol-use disorder, DUII, recent nightly drinking, and high relapse risk create a nonspeculative threat to X | No evidence mother drank to intoxication since X’s birth or that drinking impaired her ability to care for X; mere alcohol use is insufficient | Reversed — evidence insufficient to show nonspeculative, reasonably likely risk from mother’s alcohol use as documented |
| Whether mother subjects X to a "volatile and erratic household" that endangers X | The September 6 incident plus past domestic violence and parental arguments demonstrate a volatile household | Single pre-birth violent incident was isolated; grandmother (source of most volatility) moved out; no ongoing household volatility | Reversed — state failed to prove a generally volatile, current threat to X |
| Whether other substance use (marijuana) supports jurisdiction | Substance-abuse allegation includes marijuana and could contribute to parental impairment | No evidence marijuana use since X’s birth endangered X or affected parenting | Reversed — marijuana use alone, without evidence of danger to the child, is insufficient |
| Whether juvenile court’s specific factual findings are supported by the record and can sustain jurisdiction | Court’s credibility determinations and inferences justify findings of intoxication and physical struggle | Key findings (mother intoxicated that night; parents physically struggling; DHS arriving to find both parents intoxicated) lack evidentiary support | Reversed — several crucial factual findings unsupported; without them the record fails to establish jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. C. J. T., 258 Or App 57 (Or. Ct. App. 2013) (court must consider totality; jurisdiction requires current, nonspeculative threat of serious harm)
- Dept. of Human Services v. L. E. F., 307 Or App 254 (Or. Ct. App. 2020) (state must show nexus between parent’s conduct and threatened harm)
- Dept. of Human Services v. N. P., 257 Or App 633 (Or. Ct. App. 2013) (on review, view evidence and permissible inferences in light most favorable to disposition)
- State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Smith, 316 Or 646 (Or. 1993) (cannot remove a child solely because a parent uses alcohol)
- Dept. of Human Services v. J. J. B., 291 Or App 226 (Or. Ct. App. 2018) (parental alcohol use must put the child at risk of serious harm)
- Dept. of Human Services v. M. Q., 253 Or App 776 (Or. Ct. App. 2012) (similar principle: use must create risk to child)
- Dept. of Human Services v. C. Z., 236 Or App 436 (Or. Ct. App. 2010) (marijuana use, without evidence of danger to children, insufficient for jurisdiction)
- Dept. of Human Services v. L. A. K., 306 Or App 706 (Or. Ct. App. 2020) (critique of vague or amorphous jurisdictional bases)
- Dept. of Human Services v. J. D. B., 299 Or App 511 (Or. Ct. App. 2019) (if state fails as to one parent, court need not reach jurisdictional bases as to other parent)