Department of Human Services v. M. T. J.

"[T]he juvenile court 'cannot simply ignore' serious parental deficiencies' that become apparent during a permanency hearing but that were not the basis upon which jurisdiction was sought." Dept. of Human Services v. N. M. S., 246 Or App 284, 297-98, 266 P3d 107 (2011).

Father appealed a juvenile court ruling establishing jurisdiction over Child.  Father argued that the court erred in prohibiting the submission of evidence connected to Mother’s history.  In response, DHS argued that Father was unsuccessful in preserving his arguments and, if there was an error, it was harmless.  "[T]he juvenile court 'cannot simply ignore' serious parental deficiencies' that become apparent during a permanency hearing but that were not the basis upon which jurisdiction was sought." Dept. of Human Services v. N. M. S., 246 Or App 284, 297-98, 266 P3d 107 (2011).  The Court of Appeals found that the court erred in allowing Mother’s motion to deny Father’s evidence, reasoning that Department of Human Services v. G. E., 243 Or App 136, 265 P3d 53 (2011) does not preclude admittance of not pleaded facts when claiming jurisdiction.  G.E. did not require the juvenile court to overlook not pleaded “serious paternal deficiencies” that appeared in the course of a permanency hearing, but rather, “envisions amendment of the jurisdictional petition” where admission of such information would affect a parent’s rights.  The Court found that the juvenile court’s preclusion of not pleaded proof denied father of rights provided by ORS 419B.875.  Regarding DHS’s claim that Father failed to preserve his argument, the Court determined that Father’s offer of proof was not required to preserve his argument “[in] those situations in which an offer of proof is impossible because of a trial court’s refusal to allow the offer of proof to be made.” State v. Affeld, 307 Or. 125, 129, 764 P2d 220 (1988).  Reversed and remanded.