Opinion
A181624
02-22-2024
In the Matter of K. D. C., a Child. v. S. E. C., Appellant. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent,
Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Sean Connor, Deputy Public Defender, Offce of Public Defense Services, fled the briefs for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Emily N. Snook, Assistant Attorney General, fled the brief for respondent.
This is a Nonprecedential Memorandum Opinion Pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
Submitted January 30, 2024
Marion County Circuit Court 23JU00626; Natasha A. Zimmerman, Judge.
Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Sean Connor, Deputy Public Defender, Offce of Public Defense Services, fled the briefs for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Emily N. Snook, Assistant Attorney General, fled the brief for respondent.
Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, Hellman, Judge, and DeVore, Senior Judge.
LAGESEN, C.J.
Father appeals the juvenile court's judgment exercising jurisdiction over his child, K. Father contends that the juvenile court erred in exercising jurisdiction over K; in father's view, the evidence is insufficient to permit the exercise of dependency jurisdiction on the bases identified by the juvenile court. No party has asked us to exercise our discretion to conduct de novo review, and we see no reason to do so. ORS 19.415(3)(b) (judicial discretion to review de novo); ORAP 5.40(8)(c) (de novo review exercised "only in exceptional cases"). Accordingly, "we view the evidence, as supplemented and buttressed by permissible derivative inferences, in the light most favorable to the [juvenile] court's disposition and assess whether, when so viewed, the record was legally sufficient to permit that outcome." Dept. of Human Services v. J. E. K, 290 Or.App. 164, 166-67, 421 P.3d 415, rev den, 362 Or. 794 (2018) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Reviewing under those standards, we affirm.
A juvenile court has exclusive jurisdiction in any case involving a person under 18 years of age and whose condition or circumstances are such as to endanger the welfare of the person or of others. ORS 419B.100(1)(b), (c). The key inquiry is whether the evidentiary record before the court allows for the determination that "absent juvenile court jurisdiction, the child's current circumstances pose the requisite nonspeculative risk to the child." J. E. F., 290 Or.App. at 167 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); ORS 419B.100(1)(c).
Having reviewed the record in this case, we conclude that the evidence available to the juvenile court is sufficient to permit the court's exercise of jurisdiction over K on each of the identified bases. Specifically, the evidence shows that, absent intervention, the circumstances pose a nonspeculative risk of harm to K's wellbeing. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the juvenile court exercising jurisdiction over K.
Affirmed.