- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Juvenile Law
- Date Filed: 03-05-2014
- Case #: A154493
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Egan, J. for the Court; Armstrong, P.J.; and Nakamoto, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Father appealed from a juvenile court judgment. The juvenile court concluded that continued jurisdiction over daughter, A, was warranted based on the father’s lack of custody and father’s current wife’s open dependency cases for her older children. On appeal, father asserted that the juvenile court erred in denying the motion to dismiss jurisdiction over A, because even though some facts jurisdiction was based upon were true, Department of Human Services (DHS) failed to prove that the facts would subject A to a current threat of serious loss or injury. The Court held that the record is legally insufficient to support the juvenile court's continued jurisdiction because DHS did not establish evidence of a current risk of serious loss or injury to A for two reasons. First, DHS failed to provide evidence that A's mother's circumstances (at the time of the permanency hearing) posed a danger to A. Second, despite DHS’ evidence regarding the father's current wife, who had open juvenile dependency cases, DHS failed to provide evidence that the wife's actions in those cases posed a current threat of serious loss or injury to A that would be reasonably likely to be realized. Therefore, the juvenile court erred by denying father's motion to dismiss. Reversed and remanded with instructions to terminate wardship.