368 Or. 516
Or.2021Background
- Parents (Washington residents) were temporarily staying in an Oregon motel where police found squalid conditions after the infant son K died and tested positive for methamphetamine; the surviving child V was removed by DHS.
- DHS filed dependency petitions and the Sherman County juvenile court entered shelter orders asserting temporary emergency jurisdiction under the UCCJEA (ORS 109.751).
- The juvenile court later held jurisdictional hearings and entered dependency judgments making V and a subsequently born child M wards of the court, committing them to DHS and continuing foster placement; the orders also required parents to complete services to regain custody.
- Mother (J.S.) moved to dismiss, arguing the juvenile court lacked authority under ORS 109.751 or other UCCJEA provisions to enter dependency judgments for children whose home state was Washington; juvenile court and Court of Appeals denied relief.
- Oregon Supreme Court held the juvenile court had temporary emergency authority to enter dependency judgments making the children wards and continue foster placement, but it vacated portions of the judgments that ordered parental services/conditions that were not necessary to protect the children during the emergency.
Issues
| Issue | J.S. (Mother) | DHS | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of ORS 109.751: may a court exercising temporary emergency jurisdiction enter dependency judgments (wardship/placement) or only shelter orders? | ORS 109.741 prevents dependency judgments absent home-state declination; emergency jurisdiction limited to shelter orders. | ORS 109.751 authorizes temporary "child custody determinations"; dependency judgments fit that definition and may be entered when emergency persists. | Juvenile court may enter dependency judgments under ORS 109.751(2) to make children wards and continue foster placement while the emergency persists. |
| Must the Oregon court contact the home-state court and obtain declination before entering a dependency judgment under ORS 109.751? | Court must communicate with Washington and obtain an order declining jurisdiction before issuing anything beyond a shelter order. | ORS 109.751(2) contains no such prerequisite; subsections (3)–(4) impose communication duties only in particular circumstances. | No; ORS 109.751(2) does not require the juvenile court to contact the home-state court before entering temporary dependency judgments where no prior order or pending proceeding exists. |
| Are dependency judgments "temporary" for purposes of the UCCJEA emergency provision? | Dependency judgments are effectively permanent and therefore inconsistent with emergency jurisdiction. | Oregon dependency orders are time-limited by statute and thus can be temporary under the UCCJEA. | Dependency judgments are temporary within the meaning of ORS 109.751 and UCCJEA (they expire on statutorily enumerated events or when a home-state order is obtained). |
| May the juvenile court under emergency jurisdiction impose long-term parental-services conditions (drug treatment, parenting classes, mental-health exams) as requirements to regain custody? | Those service requirements exceed emergency authority because they are not necessary to protect the child in the immediate emergency. | Such requirements promote safety and reunification and are permissible in furtherance of the child’s welfare. | The court may make wardship and placement orders to protect children in an emergency, but it exceeded temporary emergency jurisdiction by ordering parental services/conditions not necessary to address the immediate emergency; those portions are vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160 (2009) (statutory interpretation methodology applied)
- Western Helicopter Services v. Rogerson Aircraft, 311 Or. 361 (1991) (uniform-act commentary admissible context)
- In re S.A.G., 487 P.3d 677 (Colo. 2021) (emergency jurisdiction cannot be used to enter permanent orders such as termination)
- Dept. of Human Services v. J.S., 303 Or. App. 324 (Court of Appeals decision reviewed in this case)
- In re Gino C., 224 Cal. App. 4th 959 (2014) (temporary emergency jurisdiction does not automatically become permanent)
- In re Angel L., 159 Cal. App. 4th 1127 (2008) (emergency jurisdiction may continue while risk of harm persists)
- In re ALH, 160 Vt. 410 (1993) (emergency jurisdiction limited to temporary protective orders)
- In re K.L.B., 56 Kan. App. 2d 429 (2018) (court’s temporary jurisdiction may continue absent action by home state)