Dept. of Human Services v. L.A.K.

Under ORS 419B.100(1)(c), jurisdiction over a child by the juvenile court will continue if the basis for jurisdiction “continue[s] to pose a current threat of serious loss or injury, and there [is] a reasonable likelihood that the threat will be realized.” Dept. of Human Services v. J. V.-G., 277 Or App 201, 212 (2016). Furthermore, at the time the “basis for jurisdiction has ceased to exist, then the juvenile court must terminate wardship and dismiss the case.” State v. A. L. M., 232 Or App 13, 16 (2009).

Father appealed a ruling from juvenile court that altered his son’s permanency plan to guardianship. Father assigned error to the juvenile court’s decision that the Department of Human services “satisfied its burden to prove that it made reasonable efforts to assist father in ameliorating the jurisdictional basis pertaining to father’s relationship with child.” On appeal, father argued that DHS did not present evidence of “how its services gave father a reasonable opportunity to ameliorate the jurisdictional basis.” In response, DHS argued that it had jurisdiction based off of father’s addiction and criminal activity, and had provided father with referrals in order to access treatment for drug and alcohol addiction. Under ORS 419B.100(1)(c), jurisdiction over a child by the juvenile court will continue if the basis for jurisdiction “continue[s] to pose a current threat of serious loss or injury, and there [is] a reasonable likelihood that the threat will be realized.” Dept. of Human Services v. J. V.-G., 277 Or App 201, 212 (2016). Furthermore, at the time the “basis for jurisdiction has ceased to exist, then the juvenile court must terminate wardship and dismiss the case.” State v. A. L. M., 232 Or App 13, 16 (2009). The Court found DHS had not met their burden because the jurisdictional basis was not inadequately described, and therefore it could not be concluded that “DHS met its burden to establish its ‘reasonable efforts.’” Reversed and remanded.