- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Family Law
- Date Filed: 11-01-2017
- Case #: A164765
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Garrett, P.J. for the Court; Power, J.; & Wollheim, S.J.
- Full Text Opinion
Father appealed from permanency judgments in which the juvenile court changed the permanency plan away from reunification. Father assigned error to the court’s use of facts outside the jurisdictional bases to determine that he had not made adequate progress towards remedying the three existing bases for jurisdiction. Father argued the new introduced facts at the permanency hearing were extrinsic to the three existing jurisdictional bases. In response, Children argue that the additional facts are not extrinsic to the bases for jurisdiction because the case plan put Father on notice that his pattern of “controlling and abusive behavior” caused an unsafe environment for the children. “When a jurisdictional judgment . . . specifically identifies a potential cause underlying a jurisdictional finding, it can be ‘fairly implied’ that that identified cause will be a referent for measuring the parent’s progress.” Dept. of Human Services v. M. M. B., 253 Or App 431, 440 rev den, 353 Or 280 (2013). The Court of Appeals found that the case plan and jurisdiction judgment put Father on notice that evidence regarding his behavior could be relied upon. The Court held that the trial court did not err in using additional facts to determine Father did not make sufficient progress because those facts are relevant to underlying causes of the bases for jurisdiction. Affirmed.