Dept. of Human Services v. M.M.

To be judicially noticeable, a fact “must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either [g]enerally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court; or [c]apable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” OEC 201(b)(1), (2).

Parent appealed the denial of his motions to dismiss dependency jurisdiction of his two younger children. On appeal, he claimed the juvenile court erred in taking judicial notice of testimony from a prior permanency hearing.  The Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS) conceded the court did err in taking judicial notice of prior testimony but argued the error was harmless. To be judicially noticeable, a fact “must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either [g]enerally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court; or [c]apable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” OEC 201(b)(1), (2). Under ORS 419A.253, the court is required to make a proper record of judicially noticed facts. The Court found the juvenile court erred in taking judicial notice of the earlier permanency hearing testimony because the notice failed to distinguish undisputed facts from the entirety of the previous hearing testimony. The Court further found the juvenile court failed to make the required record of judicially noticed facts required by ORS 419A.253 when it established notice of the entire testimony instead of distinguishing specific findings of fact. Thus, the Court held the juvenile court’s judicial notice of the testimony from a prior permanency hearing was improper and not harmless. REVERSED and REMANDED.