Willamette Law Online

Oregon Court of Appeals


ListPreviousNext


Dept. of Human Services v. J.C.G.

Summarized by: 

Date Filed: 11-21-2012
Case #: A151143
Schuman, P.J., for the Court; Wollheim, J.; and Nakamoto, J.
Full Text Opinion: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A151143.pdf

Juvenile Law: Despite compliance with a juvenile court't requirements to remove an abusive spouse from the home and submit a safety plan to keep the abused child out of contact with abusive parent, a juvenile court is reasonable in denying a father's motion to dismiss the wardship because the father never acknowledged that the abusive parent caused injury to the child and because the safety plan was not in writing and not yet implemented.

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.