Dept. of Human Services v. J. G. K.

Evidence demonstrating a parent’s ability to sufficiently care for their child is relevant at both initial and established jurisdiction hearings; however, if it is clear such evidence would not influence the court’s ruling, its exclusion is considered harmless. Dept. of Human Services v. T.L., 279 Or App 673, 678, 684-85, 379 P3d 741 (2016).

Father appealed from the juvenile court’s judgments granting dependency jurisdiction over his children, B and O. Father assigned error to the juvenile court’s exclusion of testimony by B and O’s aunt providing evidence that Father would have help to sufficiently care for B and O. On appeal, Father argued that the testimony by Aunt, if included, would have shown that the children’s needs could be sufficiently met and dependency jurisdiction was not warranted. In response, DHS argued that the testimony was irrelevant to the juvenile court’s initial jurisdiction determination. Alternatively, DHS argued the effect of the exclusion, if in error, was harmless because the testimony did not include sufficient evidence of the Father’s plan to care for B and O so as to change the holding. Evidence demonstrating a parent’s ability to sufficiently care for their child is relevant at both initial and established jurisdiction hearings; however, if it is clear such evidence would not influence the court’s ruling, its exclusion is considered harmless. Dept. of Human Services v. T.L., 279 Or App 673, 678, 684-85, 379 P3d 741 (2016). The Court held that, because the testimony involved details pertaining to the Father’s plans on how to care for B and O, the juvenile court should not have excluded the evidence. However, the Court found these plans so underdeveloped as to render their exclusion harmless. Affirmed.