Dept. of Human Services v. A. H.

“In determining whether a parent was on notice that his or her progress would be assessed based upon particular facts, we look to the petition, the jurisdictional judgment, and documentation attached to the jurisdictional judgment providing the parent notice as to the conditions for reunification.” Dept. of Human Services v. C. E., 288 Or App 649, 656-57, 406 P3d 211 (2017).

Mother appealed dismissal of her motion to dismiss dependency jurisdiction and to terminate the court’s wardship of her children. Mother argued that the court’s assignments of jurisdiction and wardship were based on “extrinsic evidence” rather than Mother’s own ability to care for her children. Mother further argued that she had not been given proper notice of the conditions of her codependency with Father and her need to protect the children from him. DHS argued that the record showed a pattern of abuse and neglect that Mother had neither addressed nor improved. “In determining whether a parent was on notice that his or her progress would be assessed based upon particular facts, we look to the petition, the jurisdictional judgment, and documentation attached to the jurisdictional judgment providing the parent notice as to the conditions for reunification.” Dept. of Human Services v. C. E., 288 Or App 649, 656-57, 406 P3d 211 (2017). The Court reasoned the juvenile court used plain language in its petition alleging jurisdiction, and the court’s orders gave Mother clear steps to improve conditions and remove the threat to the children’s welfare. The Court concluded Mother was given notice yet failed to improve the underlying causes of her children’s neglect and abuse. Affirmed.