From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dep't of Human Servs. v. N.C. (In re A. J.)

Court of Appeals of Oregon
Feb 22, 2024
331 Or. App. 187 (Or. Ct. App. 2024)

Opinion

A182029 A182030 A182031

02-22-2024

In the Matter of A. J., a Child. v. N. C., Appellant. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, In the Matter of G. A. J., aka G. A. J., aka G. A. J., aka G. J., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. N. C., Appellant. In the Matter of B. J., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. N. C., Appellant.

Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Elena C. Stross, Deputy Public Defender, Offce of Public Defense Services, fled the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Kyleigh Gray, 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This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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

Umatilla County Circuit Court 23JU00496; 23JU00497; 23JU00498; Robert W. Collins, Jr., Judge.

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

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Kyleigh Gray, Assistant Attorney General, fled the brief for respondent.

Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, Hellman, Judge, and DeVore, Senior Judge.

Affirmed.

DeVORE, S. J.

Mother appeals the judgments of the juvenile court taking dependency jurisdiction over her children G, B, and A. She challenges jurisdiction in eighteen assignments of error. Together they pose the question whether the evidence, when supplemented by permissible derivative inferences and when considered in the light most favorable to the juvenile court's judgments, was sufficient to support the court's conclusions. Dept. of Human Services v. M. K., 285 Or.App. 448, 450, 396 P.3d 294, rev den, 361 Or. 885 (2017). Because the evidence was sufficient, we affirm.

The juvenile court found that the department had proved five allegations regarding each child: (1) that mother does not understand the basic needs of the children and lacks parenting skills necessary to safely parent them; (2) that mother leaves them unsupervised; (3) that her substance abuse interferes with her ability to safely parent them; (4) that she exposed them to persons who present a risk of harm to the children; and (5) that she was subjected to domestic violence and was unable to protect the children from exposure to that violence. In more than one instance, the juvenile court found that mother was not credible. The juvenile court recognized mother's love of the children and commended mother for enrolling in renewed treatment of her substance abuse after relapses. From the bench, the juvenile court explained how the substance abuse contributed to the other adverse findings and led to the ultimate conclusion that there was a present risk of harm to the children if the court did not take jurisdiction to permit the department to provide services. The children were in the care of mother's mother, and each judgment calls for a plan of reunification of the children with mother or with mother and father.

Our recital of the family's circumstances would not serve the interests of the bench or bar. The trial court's explanation of its determination, in colloquy with mother's counsel, was clear, thoughtful, and grounded in the evidence. On appeal, we conclude that the record is sufficient to support a nonspeculative conclusion that the conditions and circumstances present a current threat of serious loss or injury to the children. See ORS 419B.100(1)(c); Dept. of Human Services v. C. J. T., 258 Or.App. 57, 61-62, 308 P.3d 307 (2013) (standard); see also Dept. of Human Services v. S. A. B. O., 291 Or.App. 88, 98-101, 417 P.3d 555 (2018) (insufficient evidence of nexus between risk-causing conduct and harm to child). The record supports dependency jurisdiction on each of the bases determined by the juvenile court. Therefore, the judgments are affirmed.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Dep't of Human Servs. v. N.C. (In re A. J.)

Court of Appeals of Oregon
Feb 22, 2024
331 Or. App. 187 (Or. Ct. App. 2024)
Case details for

Dep't of Human Servs. v. N.C. (In re A. J.)

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of A. J., a Child. v. N. C., Appellant. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN…

Court:Court of Appeals of Oregon

Date published: Feb 22, 2024

Citations

331 Or. App. 187 (Or. Ct. App. 2024)