- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Family Law
- Date Filed: 10-26-2011
- Case #: A147968
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Armstrong, J. for the Court; Haselton, P.J.; & Duncan, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Mother appealed the juvenile court's alteration of her permanency plan from adoption, rather than reunification, of children F, R, and T. Mother argued the court erred when it relied on facts extrinsic to that which jurisdiction was established. Specifically, Mother argued that non-accidental bruises the children obtained were extrinsic to the court's jurisdiction. In contrast, the state argued that the court is not limited to facts solely within the jurisdictional judgment. However, the Court of Appeals held that when a substantial right of a parent is affected by a change in facts, such as those extrinsic to the court's jurisdiction, the parent must be given constitutionally adequate notice as to what, exactly, he or she must do to prevent or terminate jurisdiction of the state. In this case, the new jurisdictional fact the court based its judgment on were facts so "different in kind" that notice was required to inform Mother that her actions would warrant jurisdiction of the state. Reversed and remanded.