Dept. of Human Services v. C D. B. , 299 Or. App. 513 ( 2019 )

513
Submitted August 2, reversed September 18, 2019
In the Matter of R. N.,
a Child.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
C. D. B.,
aka C. F.,
Appellant.
Multnomah County Circuit Court
18JU05488;
Petition Number 113284;
A170508
450 P3d 1032
Xiomara Y. Torres, Judge.
Matthew J. Steven filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Hannah K. Hoffman, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge, and
Schuman, Senior Judge.
PER CURIAM
Reversed.
514 Dept. of Human Services v. C D. B.
PER CURIAM
In this juvenile dependency case, mother appeals a
judgment taking jurisdiction over child based on the juris-
dictional allegation that there was a current risk of harm
to child because mother had allowed child to live in a home
that had been raided by the police nine months before the
jurisdictional trial, which was conducted on stipulated facts.
In the raid, police discovered heroin and drug parapherna-
lia, as well as evidence of other criminal activity, and all
persons living in the home, including mother, were arrested.
On appeal, mother asserts that there was insufficient evi-
dence to support a conclusion that child’s condition or cir-
cumstances expose child to a current threat of serious loss
or injury that is likely to be realized. ORS 419B.100(1)(c);
Dept. of Human Services v. A. W., 276 Or App 276, 278, 367
P3d 556 (2016). That is, at the time of the trial, mother and
child lived with mother’s parents—the situation was stipu-
lated to be “safe and stable, and no illicit drug use or unsafe
individuals are allowed in the home,” and mother intended
to continue to live there with child for the foreseeable future.
The Department of Human Services (DHS) concedes that
the evidence is legally insufficient to show a current threat
of serious loss or injury to child.
When we review the juvenile court judgment, we
“view the evidence, as supplemented and buttressed by per-
missible derivative inferences, in the light most favorable to
the [juvenile] court’s disposition and assess whether, when
so viewed, the record was legally sufficient to permit that
outcome.” Dept. of Human Services v. N. P., 257 Or App 633,
639, 307 P3d 444 (2013). Here, we agree with and accept
DHS’s concession that the evidence is legally insufficient.
Accordingly, we reverse the jurisdictional judgment.
Reversed.