DHS v. M.M.

“To establish jurisdiction, the Department of Human Services (DHS) must prove that the child’s conditions or circumstances ‘present a current threat of serious loss or injury’ that is nonspeculative and reasonably likely to be realized.” DHS v. C.J.T., 258 Or App 57, 61-62 (2013).

In October 2020, the juvenile court asserted dependency jurisdiction over baby C, finding that the mother exposed the child to domestic violence and that her “substance abuse interfered with her ability to safely parent.” In July 2021, baby Z was born to the mother. In July 2022, the mother and a man named Krueger had a public altercation. Subsequently, DHS removed Z from her mother’s care. In October 2022, the juvenile court asserted dependency jurisdiction over Z, and made Z a ward of the court. On appeal, the mother assigned error to each of the jurisdictional bases the juvenile court used to make its ruling about baby Z. “To establish jurisdiction, the Department of Human Services (DHS) must prove that the child’s conditions or circumstances ‘present a current threat of serious loss or injury’ that is nonspeculative and reasonably likely to be realized.” DHS v. C.J.T., 258 Or App 57, 61-62 (2013). The Court reasoned that the sole altercation with Krueger provided insufficient evidence that the mother “exposed Z to ‘violence’ so as to create a current threat of serious loss or injury to Z.” Furthermore, the Court reasoned that although the mother had not “meaningfully engaged in substance abuse,” and that there was one DHS witness who testified that the mother was acting in a manner consistent with controlled substance use; and because the mother testified that she had not engaged in drug activity since August 3, 2021, on the record as whole there was also insufficient evidence that the mother failed to ameliorate the substance abuse that led to the removal of baby C. For these reasons, and because the Court reasoned that there was “no evidence that Z faces a current threat of serious loss or injury from mother’s past as a victim of domestic violence,” the Court held that “the juvenile court erred in asserting dependency jurisdiction over Z on the three bases that it did[.]” Reversed.