Dep't of Hum. Servs. v. M.E.M.

"On a motion to dismiss dependency jurisdiction, DHS bears the burden of proving by the preponderance of the evidence there is a present, credible threat of actual harm to the child and demonstrating 'a nexus between the allegedly risk-causing conduct and the harm to the child.'" DHS v. JM, 267 P.3d 402 (Or. Ct. App. 2015); DHS v. CJT, 308 P.3d 307 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).

Mother appealed the juvenile court’s denial of her motion to dismiss its jurisdiction over her two children. Mother assigned error to the juvenile court’s conclusion that the bases that compelled continued jurisdiction had not improved. On appeal, Mother argued that her stable housing, full-time employment, and lack of new criminal convictions were sufficient to dismiss the court’s jurisdiction. DHS argued that the probability of drug use and probation violation created a risk of additional jail time for Mother, obstructing her ability to safely parent. On a motion to dismiss dependency jurisdiction, DHS bears the burden of proving by the preponderance of the evidence there is a present, credible threat of actual harm to the child and “demonstrates a nexus between the allegedly risk-causing conduct and the harm to the child.” DHS v. JM, 267 P.3d 402 (Or. Ct. App. 2015); DHS v. CJT, 308 P.3d 307 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). The Court reasoned Mother demonstrated “lack of insight” into the effects of her actions by denying drug use even after a positive drug test. The Court found Mother’s risk of incarceration directly contributed to her inability to safely parent, which warrants the continuation of jurisdiction over both of the children. Affirmed.