- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Juvenile Law
- Date Filed: 11-21-2012
- Case #: A151143
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Schuman, P.J., for the Court; Wollheim, J.; and Nakamoto, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Father appealed a judgment from the juvenile court that denied his motion to dismiss the wardship of the juvenile court over his child. After DHS determined that the step-mother had abused the child, the child was removed from the home and placed in substitute care. In order for the child to be returned to the home, the juvenile court required Father to present a safety plan that prevented contact with the step-mother and that the step-mother move out of the home. Father complied. Despite this, at the permanency hearing, the juvenile court refused to dismiss the wardship. The Court of Appeals refused to review the decision of the juvenile court de novo, citing a lack of exceptional circumstances. The Court of Appeals held that because Father had not acknowledged that the step-mother was responsible for child's injuries; and because the safety plan was not in writing, newly proposed, and not yet implemented, the juvenile court was reasonable to be concerned about Father's ability to protect the child. Affirmed.