Dept. of Human Services v. T. B.-L., 320 Or. App. 434

Juvenile court asserted dependency jurisdiction over K (age 5) and S (age 4) under ORS 419B.100(1)(c), predicated on parents’ "ongoing volatile and/or unsafe relationship." Father appealed.
Between Dec. 31, 2020 and June 3, 2021 police responded to four incidents between mother and father: shoving/grabbing (Dec. 31), a struggle over a meth pipe witnessed by the children (Jan. 24), scratching/biting (May 15), and a pushing/shoving episode with broken glass (June 3). Children were present or aware in at least two incidents.
DHS also alleged parental substance abuse and exposure of the children to domestic violence; the juvenile court dismissed those specific allegations.
The juvenile court found a nonspeculative threat of harm because the parents’ physicality could put the children at risk, including by children potentially intervening, and took jurisdiction.
After father appealed the court later terminated jurisdiction; DHS moved to dismiss the appeal as moot but the Court of Appeals denied dismissal because of asserted collateral consequences.
On the merits the Court of Appeals held the evidence legally insufficient to show a present, nonspeculative risk of "serious" loss or injury to the children that was reasonably likely to occur, and reversed the jurisdictional findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DHS)	Defendant's Argument (Father)	Held
Mootness of appeal	Termination of jurisdiction/wardship moots the appeal	Collateral consequences (future DHS investigations, inability to obtain agency review of founded dispositions, effect on custody/visitation) keep the challenge live	Appeal not moot; collateral consequences sufficient to prevent dismissal
Sufficiency of evidence for jurisdiction under ORS 419B.100(1)(c)	Four police incidents show a pattern creating a risk of serious physical harm; children could be present or intervene	Incidents show only verbal disputes and limited pushing/shoving; no evidence of children being objects of violence or of a nonspeculative, reasonably likely risk of serious injury	Evidence legally insufficient to establish a present, nonspeculative risk of serious loss or injury; jurisdiction reversed
Preservation of sufficiency argument	Father failed to preserve challenge below	Father preserved the issue	Court rejected DHS’s preservation contention

Dept. of Human Services v. K. C. F., 282 Or App 12 (2016) (articulates endangerment test: current threat of serious loss or injury reasonably likely to be realized)
Dept. of Human Services v. S. D. I., 259 Or App 116 (2013) (threat must be to the child—exposure to "danger" involves risk of serious loss or injury)
Dept. of Human Services v. J. J. B., 291 Or App 226 (2018) (generalizations insufficient; court must rely on evidence of child’s specific conditions and circumstances)
State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. L. B., 233 Or App 360 (2010) (collateral consequences can preserve jurisdictional appeals from mootness)
Dept. of Human Services v. P. D., 368 Or 627 (2021) (appeal not moot where collateral consequences identified despite later dismissal)
Dept. of Human Services v. A. J. G., 304 Or App 221 (2020) (jurisdiction affirmed where child was particularly vulnerable and exposed to ongoing, severe domestic violence)
Dept. of Human Services v. T. J., 302 Or App 531 (2020) (jurisdiction affirmed where infant was vulnerable and the household experienced severe physical violence)
State v. S. T. S., 236 Or App 646 (2010) (jurisdiction affirmed where young child was exposed to significant physical assaults on a parent)
Dept. of Human Services v. K. C. F., 282 Or App 12 (2016) (reiterated that risk of "some harm" is insufficient; must be risk of serious harm reasonably likely to occur)