Dept. of Human Services v. P. D., 368 Or. 627

Parents were California residents on a short trip to Oregon with their two children when mother (bipolar disorder) used methamphetamine, suffered a breakdown, and assaulted the two‑year‑old.
Police arrested mother; father agreed to a safety plan but then allowed mother contact with the children; DHS removed the children and filed dependency petitions under ORS 109.751 (temporary emergency jurisdiction).
The juvenile court issued shelter orders, then held a jurisdictional hearing and entered dependency judgments making the children wards of the court, committing them to DHS custody, placing them in foster care, and ordering parents to complete specified services to regain custody.
Parents moved to dismiss, arguing Oregon lacked authority under the home‑state rules (ORS 109.741); the juvenile court denied dismissal and the parents appealed; while appeals were pending DHS later terminated the wardship after the children were returned to father and services were completed.
The Oregon Supreme Court considered mootness (declining to dismiss because of asserted collateral consequences) and held that under ORS 109.751 the juvenile court could enter dependency judgments making the children wards and keeping them in foster care, but could not order non‑emergency measures (e.g., required services) beyond what was necessary to address the emergency.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (DHS)	Held
Whether a juvenile court exercising temporary emergency jurisdiction under ORS 109.751 may enter dependency judgments (adjudicate wardship) when the children’s home state is another state	ORS 109.741 (home‑state rule) bars Oregon from making initial custody adjudications absent home‑state declination; ORS 109.751 does not authorize full dependency judgments	ORS 109.751 is an exception to ORS 109.741 in emergencies and authorizes temporary child‑custody determinations, including dependency judgments while the emergency persists	Court held ORS 109.751 authorized dependency judgments making the children wards and placing them in foster care when the emergency persisted and no other state had assumed jurisdiction
Whether the juvenile court may order parents to participate in specified services or other non‑emergency requirements as part of dependency judgments under ORS 109.751	Such service orders exceeded temporary emergency jurisdiction because they are not necessary to protect the children in the emergency	DHS contended such orders were appropriate incident to dependency adjudication and protective goals	Court held the juvenile court lacked authority under ORS 109.751 to impose requirements not necessary for immediate emergency protection (orders to engage in services vacated)

Dept. of Human Services v. J. S., 368 Or. 516 (2021) (Oregon Supreme Court holding temporary emergency jurisdiction may support dependency judgments but not non‑emergency orders)
Dept. of Human Services v. J. S., 303 Or. App. 324 (2020) (Court of Appeals decision on similar temporary‑jurisdiction issues)
Dept. of Human Services v. A. B., 362 Or. 412 (2018) (discusses when appeals remain justiciable after wardship termination)
Brumnett v. PSRB, 315 Or. 402 (1993) (mootness principles for appellate courts)
Couey v. Atkins, 357 Or. 460 (2015) (prudential considerations for dismissal of moot cases)
In re C.C., 172 Cal. App. 4th 1481 (2009) (California authority treating appellate dismissal as potential affirmance and recognizing collateral‑consequence prejudice)
In re C.V., 15 Cal. App. 5th 566 (2017) (similar California treatment of collateral consequences and mootness)