T. W. v. C. L. K.

To “avoid affecting the substantial rights of a parent, a juvenile court cannot base its jurisdictional decision on facts that depart from the petition or jurisdictional judgment when neither the petition nor the jurisdictional judgment would put a reasonable parent on notice of what the parent must do to prevent the state from asserting or continuing jurisdiction over the child.” Dept of Human Services v. J.R.L., 256 Or App 437, 448 (2013).

Mother and Father appealed a judgment that denied Father’s motion to dismiss jurisdiction which in turn would have terminated the court’s wardship over Mother and Father’s children. Mother and Father assigned error to the juvenile court’s ruling that father’s jurisdictional bases still existed. Mother and Father argued that uncontested evidence established Father’s residence in Oregon and that because his last criminal conviction occurred in 2014, no safety risks existed to continue dependency jurisdiction. To “avoid affecting the substantial rights of a parent, a juvenile court cannot base its jurisdictional decision on facts that depart from the petition or jurisdictional judgment when neither the petition nor the jurisdictional judgment would put a reasonable parent on notice of what the parent must do to prevent the state from asserting or continuing jurisdiction over the child.” Dept of Human Services v. J.R.L., 256 Or App 437, 448 (2013). The Court held that relying on evidence outside of the jurisdictional bases was an error by the lower court, and reasoned that the reliance largely on Father’s alcohol abuse was extrinsic, thus Father lacked adequate notice. Reversed and remanded.