Dep't of Human Servs. v. G.W.Y. (In re G. S. Y.)

Full title: In the Matter of G. S. Y., a Child. v. G. W. Y., Appellant. DEPARTMENT OF…

Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon

Date published: Dec 29, 2022

323 Or. App. 497 (Or. Ct. App. 2022)

Opinion

A178704

12-29-2022

In the Matter of G. S. Y., a Child. v. G. W. Y., Appellant. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent,

Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Elena C. Stross, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jona J. Maukonen, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

TOOKEY, P. J.

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 November 22, 2022

Jackson County Circuit Court 21JU05783; A178704 Joe M. Charter, Judge. Affirmed.

Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Elena C. Stross, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jona J. Maukonen, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Kamins, Judge, and DeVore, Senior Judge.

TOOKEY, P. J.

In this juvenile dependency case, father appeals a judgment asserting jurisdiction over his child, G. The juvenile court found G within its jurisdiction under ORS 419B.100(1)(c) on the following bases: (1) father's "substance abuse interferes with his ability to safely parent the child," (2) "the child has been exposed to domestic violence by the father," and (3) mother "was subjected to domestic violence by the father and the mother is unable to protect the child from exposure to father's violence." On appeal, father raises four assignments of error, advancing a combined argument that the juvenile court erred in finding G within its jurisdiction, because the evidence is legally insufficient to support those bases. Having reviewed the record to determine whether it permitted the juvenile court to find that "the child's condition or circumstances gave rise to a current threat of serious loss or injury to the child and that there is a reasonable likelihood that the threat will be realized," Dept. of Human Services v. A. J. G., 304 Or.App. 221, 224, 465 P.3d 293, rev den, 366 Or. 826 (2020), and "view[ing] the evidence, as supplemented and buttressed by permissible derivative inferences, in the light most favorable to the trial court's disposition," Dept. of Human Services v. N. P., 257 Or.App. 633, 639, 307 P.3d 444 (2013), we conclude that the juvenile court did not err in finding G within its jurisdiction under ORS 419B.100(1)(c), and we affirm.

Affirmed.