Dept. of Human Services v. P. D.

When a parent appeals from a jurisdictional judgment and the underlying dependency petition is subsequently dismissed, “termination of such a wardship does not necessarily render the appeal moot; whether dismissal is appropriate will depend on the particular circumstances presented.” Dept. of Human Services v. A.B., 362 Or 412, 414, 412 P3d 1169 (2018).

Mother assaulted and injured her two-year old child. After Father failed to comply with the safety plan set by a DHS case worker, the children were placed in protective custody. DHS filed dependency petitions for the children, alleging that under ORS 109.751, one of the statutes in the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act as enacted in Oregon. Mother and Father each moved to terminate the wardships, arguing that the juvenile court did not have temporary emergency jurisdiction under ORS 109.751. In response, DHS argued that because no action had been commenced in California regarding the children, the children were still endangered. When a parent appeals from a jurisdictional judgment and the underlying dependency petition is subsequently dismissed, “termination of such a wardship does not necessarily render the appeal moot; whether dismissal is appropriate will depend on the particular circumstances presented.” Dept. of Human Services v. A.B., 362 Or 412, 414, 412 P3d 1169 (2018). The Court concluded that, because the orders were temporary and the emergency giving rise to the children’s removal from their parents had not yet dissipated at the time the dependency judgments were entered, “the juvenile court properly exercised temporary emergency jurisdiction over the children.” Affirmed in part and reversed in part.