Dept. of Human Services v. J. J. B.

When a juvenile court wants to establish jurisdiction over a child they must show “sufficient evidence” and “establish a nexus” related to the “conditions or circumstances that endanger the [child’s] welfare.” ORS 419B.100(1)(c). Dept. of Human Services v. A. W., 276 Or App 276, 278, 367 P3d 556 (2016). Dept. of Human Services v. C.J.T., 258 or App 57, 62, 308 P3d 307 (2013).

Father appealed from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional judgment over his five-year-old girl. Father assigned error to the juvenile court’s “statutorily prescribed determination.” On appeal, Father argued that DHS failed to prove the presence of any domestic violence and failed to prove that the parents' substance abuse created a “non-speculative risk of serious loss or injury to the child that was likely to be realized in the absence of dependency jurisdiction.” In response, DHS argued they met their burden of proof because the child testified about the parents fighting in the past, the caseworker provided eyewitness testimony that she observed the parents fighting, and because the wife testified that she only felt safe "most of the time." Additionally, DHS argued that based on past experience, parents who use substances often put their addiction ahead of their child and these parents lack in supervising their children. When a juvenile court wants to establish jurisdiction over a child they must show “sufficient evidence” and “establish a nexus” related to the “conditions or circumstances that endanger the [child’s] welfare.” ORS 419B.100(1)(c). Dept. of Human Services v. A. W., 276 Or App 276, 278, 367 P3d 556 (2016). Dept. of Human Services v. C.J.T., 258 or App 57, 62, 308 P3d 307 (2013). The Court of Appeals concluded that DHS failed to present evidence sufficient to establish that the parent’s actions, either in  connection to domestic violence, substance abuse, or both, created “a current threat of serious loss or injury to the child that is likely to be realized.”

Reversed.