Opinion
A178131
08-03-2022
In the Matter of S. L. R., a Child. v. S. D. R., Appellant. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent,
George W. Kelly fled the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Colm Moore, 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This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 June 27, 2022
Jackson County Circuit Court 21JU05828; A178131 David J. Orr, Judge.
George W. Kelly fled the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Colm Moore, Assistant Attorney General, fled the brief for respondent.
Before Egan, Presiding Judge, and Kamins, Judge, and Sercombe, Senior Judge.
PER CURIAM
In this juvenile dependency case, father appeals from a jurisdictional judgment that includes a dispositional order requiring him to participate in a mental health assessment and parenting classes. The juvenile court asserted jurisdiction over S after father admitted that residential instability and drug use interfered with his ability to safely parent. Father argues that the court failed to properly establish a rational relationship between the jurisdictional bases and the imposed mental health assessment and parenting classes. The Department of Human Services (DHS) concedes that the trial court erred in ordering father to participate in a mental health assessment and parenting classes based solely on his admissions. We agree and, accordingly, we vacate the portion of the jurisdictional judgment requiring father to participate in a mental health assessment and parenting classes. We otherwise affirm the jurisdictional judgment.
"We review the juvenile court's factual findings for any evidence and its legal conclusions for errors of law." Dept. of Human Services v. W. C. T., 314 Or.App. 743, 745, 401 P.3d 44 (2021).
The juvenile court has authority to order DHS to provide services under ORS 419B.337(2) only if the services bear a "rational relationship to the jurisdictional findings." Dept. of Human Services v. K. J., 295 Or.App. 544, 548, 435 P.3d 819 (2019). Although establishing a rational relationship between a court-ordered service and the jurisdictional bases is a low bar, it does have substance. Id. at 549. Here, there was no additional evidence presented at disposition following father's admissions at the jurisdictional hearing. Substance abuse and residential instability are conditions that can occur to individuals with sound mental health and by themselves do not tell us anything about a person's parenting skills. Father's admissions to substance abuse and residential instability are not enough by themselves to establish a nonspeculative relationship between the jurisdictional bases and the need for parenting classes or mental health assessment. See Dept of Human Services v D. R. D., 298 Or.App. 788, 800, 450 P.3d 1022 (2019) (DHS presented evidence that the psychological evaluation was a component of substance abuse treatment that had a rational relationship to the jurisdictional basis and thus the juvenile court was within its authority when it ordered father to complete a psychological evaluation.); K. J., 295 Or.App. at 551-52 (DHS failed to identify "evidence that reasonably suggests that a mental health issue might be contributing to father's housing situation and therefore a psychological evaluation is not rationally related to the jurisdictional basis.").
Portion of jurisdictional judgment requiring father to participate in mental health assessment and parenting classes vacated; otherwise affirmed.