T. W. v. C. L. K., 310 Or. App. 80

DHS filed dependency petitions in June 2016 while father was living in Vermont on parole/probation for prior DUII convictions; children were living with mother and later placed with maternal grandparents as guardians.
The juvenile court dismissed allegations of father’s substance-abuse “behavior” and entered a jurisdictional finding focused on father being “out of state and unable to be a resource due to his criminal convictions and attendant consequences.”
Father completed his Vermont supervision, returned to Oregon in January 2020, married mother, and in March 2020 moved to dismiss jurisdiction and terminate the wardships, arguing the pleaded jurisdictional bases had been ameliorated.
At the dismissal hearing father gave inconsistent testimony about his alcohol use; guardians reported some concerns but had not prevented contact; the juvenile court found father not fully credible.
The juvenile court denied the motion, relying in part on father’s alcohol use and credibility; the majority of the court of appeals reversed and remanded because the juvenile court relied on facts extrinsic to the pleaded jurisdictional bases without giving father adequate notice; a dissent argued alcoholism was fairly implied and father had notice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether father ameliorated the jurisdictional bases (out-of-state/unable to be a resource) so dismissal was required	Father: He completed supervision and moved back to Oregon; the pleaded bases are gone	Children/DHS: Risk persists because of father’s alcohol-related history and current alcohol use	Majority: Reversed denial because juvenile court relied on father’s alcohol use—a fact extrinsic to the pleaded basis—without adequate notice; remand to reconsider without those facts
Whether the juvenile court may rely on facts beyond the pleaded jurisdictional basis absent amendment	Parents: Court erred by looking beyond the specific pleaded bases	Children: Facts (e.g., alcoholism) were fairly implied by the jurisdictional judgment and parents had notice	Majority: Court may not base jurisdiction on unalleged facts unless a reasonable parent had adequate notice that those facts were part of the basis; here notice insufficient for reliance on alcohol evidence. Dissent: alcoholism was fairly implied and father had actual notice
Who bears the burden when moving to dismiss after change from reunification	Father: He met burden to show amelioration of pleaded bases	DHS: Parent bears burden to prove bases no longer pose current, reasonably likely threat	Held: Parent bears burden to prove amelioration, but here the juvenile court’s reliance on unalleged facts required reversal and remand for reconsideration without those facts

Dept. of Human Services v. J. C., 365 Or. 223 (Or. 2018) (juvenile court may assert new jurisdictional bases if circumstances change but must follow amendment procedures)
Dept. of Human Services v. J. R. L., 256 Or. App. 437 (Or. App. 2013) (court cannot base jurisdiction on facts that would not put a reasonable parent on notice of what must be remedied)
Dept. of Human Services v. G. E., 243 Or. App. 471 (Or. App. 2011) (continuing wardship on unalleged facts can violate a parent’s substantial rights if those facts were not pleaded or would not give notice)
Dept. of Human Services v. L. A. K., 306 Or. App. 706 (Or. App. 2020) (the precise wording of the pleaded jurisdictional basis is critical and orients the case)
Dept. of Human Services v. T. L., 279 Or. App. 673 (Or. App. 2016) (when permanency plan shifts away from reunification, a parent seeking dismissal must prove that the jurisdictional bases no longer pose a current, reasonably likely threat)
State v. A. L. M., 232 Or. App. 13 (Or. App. 2009) (a juvenile court may not continue a wardship if the jurisdictional facts have ceased to exist)