Dept. of Human Services v. S. R. L.

In order for dependency jurisdiction to be exercised, the state must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a current risk of the child being exposed to conditions or circumstances that could result in serious loss or injury. The state may not make generalized complaints and instead must theorize what harm would happen, at what degree, and for what duration.

In October of 2022, Child was removed from Mother’s care after 3 weeks without access to medication and exposure to an abusive family member. In February of 2023, juvenile court took dependency jurisdiction over Child based on a petition from the Department of Human Services (DHS). Petitioners (both Mother and Child) appealed, asserting that the court erred in exercising jurisdiction. Petitioners argued that at the time of the February 2023 hearing, the initial circumstances that lead to Child’s removal had changed, and any further harm to Child was merely speculative. In order for dependency jurisdiction to be exercised, the state must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a current risk of the child being exposed to conditions or circumstances that could result in serious loss or injury.  Dept. of Human Services v. K.C.F., 282 Or App 12, 19, 383 P3d 931 (2016) and Dept. of Health and Human Services v. M.Q., 253 Or App 776, 785, 292 P3d 621 (2012). The Court found that the conditions that existed at the time of Child’s removal had changed, and that there was no evidence to support that Child was currently at risk under Mother’s care. The Court reasoned that the state may not make generalized complaints and instead must theorize what harm would happen, at what degree, and for what duration. REVERSED.