Dept. of Human Services v. C.P.

In juvenile dependency cases, the burden shifts to the parents when the parents file a motion to dismiss after the permanency plan has been changed to something other than reunification.

Father appealed an order denying his motion to dismiss jurisdiction and terminate wardship over his two children. Father filed the dismissal after the permanency plan had been changed from reunification to adoption. Father did not dispute his inability to safely parent the children, but presented evidence that the grandfather could care for the children and ameliorate any safety threat. The Department of Human Services argued that "the original bases of jurisdiction would persist and expose the children to a risk of serious loss or injury that was likely to be realized" if the court granted Father's motion to dismiss. The trial court denied Father's motion to dismiss. The Court held, in viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's decision to deny Father's motion to dismiss, that there was sufficient evidence that grandfather would have difficultly protecting the children from the risks posed by the parents if the dismissal was granted. Affirmed.