Dept. of Human Services v. C. C.

A child’s welfare is at risk, and thus the juvenile court has jurisdiction, if the child is unprotected from circumstances that present 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. C. J. T., 258 Or App 57, 61, 308 P3d 307 (2013). Whether an issue has been preserved turns on “whether the policies underlying the preservation rule have been adequately met.” State v. Parkins, 346 Or 333, 341, 221 P3d 262 (2009).

Mother and Father individually appealed judgments which deemed their children wards of the court in a consolidated dependency case. Mother asserted that the Department of Human Services (DHS) did not present enough evidence to establish jurisdiction regarding child H. Father argued that statutorily required notice was not provided to him regarding children A and H, thus, the juvenile court erred in hearing the case. A child’s welfare is at risk, and thus the juvenile court has jurisdiction, if the child is unprotected from circumstances that present 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. C. J. T., 258 Or App 57, 61, 308 P3d 307 (2013). Whether an issue has been preserved turns on “whether the policies underlying the preservation rule have been adequately met.” State v. Parkins, 346 Or 333, 341, 221 P3d 262 (2009). The Court agreed with Mother, and held that the evidence presented was legally insufficient to support jurisdiction because Mother’s prior living situation did not pose a current risk of harm to H, and Mother’s lack of relationship with H, alone, was too speculative. The Court also held that Father failed to preserve his notice claim and there was no plain error. In Case No. 20JU01464, reversed. In Case No. 20JU01466, affirmed.