Dep’t of Hum. Servs. v. S.J.

Dependency jurisdiction is not warranted if a parent has entrusted the primary care of their child to another caregiver as long as that arrangement does not expose the child to a current risk of harm. See Dept. of Human Services v. A.L., 342 P.3d 174, 179 (2015).

Mother appealed the juvenile court’s assertion of jurisdiction over her eight-year-old daughter (“B”). Mother argued jurisdiction was not proper because she made a plan to place B with Mother’s sister. The Department of Human Services (“the Department”) argued that Mother did not initiate the placement and failed to eliminate the threat of serious loss or injury to B. Dependency jurisdiction is not warranted if a parent has entrusted the primary care of their child to another caregiver as long as that arrangement does not expose the child to a current risk of harm. See Dept. of Human Services v. A.L., 342 P.3d 174, 179 (2015). The Court found the record did not support a finding that Mother entrusted B to the care of her sister or that she would adhere to that arrangement absent court supervision. The Court reasoned that the decision to place B with Mother’s sister was made by the Department. Further, Mother’s sister did not testify to having the resources or commitment to care for B. The Court concluded that record evidence showed dependency jurisdiction was warranted. Affirmed.