Dep't of Human Servs. v. L. G. (In re L. H.)

Full title: In the Matter of L. H., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

Date published: Oct 3, 2012

Multnomah County Circuit Court 2011804162 (Or. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2012)

Opinion

Multnomah County Circuit Court 2011804162 Petition Number 108479M A149648

10-03-2012

In the Matter of L. H., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. L. G., Appellant.

PER CURIAM

Paula J. Kurshner, Judge. On respondent's petition for reconsideration filed July 19, 2012. Opinion filed July 5, 2012. 251 Or App 1, 281 P3d 681. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Shannon T. Reel, Assistant Attorney General, for petition. Before Schuman, Presiding Judge, and Wollheim, Judge, and Nakamoto, Judge. PER CURIAM Reconsideration allowed; former opinion adhered to as modified.

PER CURIAM

The state seeks reconsideration of our opinion in this case, Dept. of Human Services v. L. G. , 251 Or App 1, 281 P3d 681 (2012), in which we held that there was no basis for jurisdiction over L. The juvenile court took jurisdiction over L, finding that mother had been subjected to domestic violence by L's father, which presented a threat of harm to L. The court further found that mother had failed to obtain regular and adequate medical care for L's sibling, J, "and has a pattern of not meeting [J's] medical needs," which posed a risk of harm to L. We held that the bases for jurisdiction alleged in the petition, and on which the juvenile court had determined that it had jurisdiction over L, no longer exist. Id. at 5. We said:

"In particular, there is no evidence that mother is subject to harm from father, who no longer has a relationship with mother or with L. Accordingly, there is no current threat of harm to L based on exposure to domestic violence."

Id. The state contends in its petition for reconsideration that our opinion overlooked as a separate basis for jurisdiction the juvenile court's finding of a continuing risk of harm to L arising from mother's past failure to provide L's sibling, J, with needed medical care. We allow reconsideration and conclude explicitly that there is no evidence that mother's past medical neglect of J poses a current risk of harm to L.

Reconsideration allowed; former opinion adhered to as modified.