Dept. of Human Services v. M. F.

“A juvenile court cannot assert jurisdiction . . . simply because it is concerned that a parent might not be sufficiently attentive . . . DHS must [provide] evidence sufficient to establish that the parent in fact has parenting deficits that create a current threat of serious loss or injury to the child that is reasonably likely to be realized.” Dept. of Human Services v. M. F., 294 Or App 688, 699 (2018).

Father appealed the juvenile court’s judgment taking jurisdiction over his child, A, arguing it erred. Father asserted there was insufficient evidence that his parenting skills or substance abuse posed a current “nonspeculative risk of serious loss or injury” to A. In response, DHS argued there was sufficient evidence to support the ruling. “A juvenile court cannot assert jurisdiction . . . simply because it is concerned that a parent might not be sufficiently attentive . . . DHS must [provide] evidence sufficient to establish that the parent in fact has parenting deficits that create a current threat of serious loss or injury to the child that is reasonably likely to be realized.” Dept. of Human Services v. M. F., 294 Or App 688, 699 (2018). The Court found that DHS was identifying generic household hazards and failed to prove that father’s parenting skills, although rusty, were so inadequate to handle them. Additionally, there was no relationship found between the alleged substance abuse and father’s parenting of A, nor any specific evidence of how A was affected by either. The Court found that without specific evidence regarding father’s drug use, the record was insufficient. Thus the Court held that DHS’s allegations are too speculative to support jurisdiction and it failed to demonstrate that father posed a current risk of loss or serious injury to A. REVERSED.