Dept. of Human Services v. A. H. , 316 Or. App. 126 ( 2021 )

126
Submitted October 28, affirmed December 1, 2021
In the Matter of S. A. H.,
a Child.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
A. H.,
Appellant.
Douglas County Circuit Court
21JU00533; A175909
500 P3d 770
Jason R. Thomas, Judge.
Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate
Section, and Sean Connor, Deputy Public Defender, Office of
Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Joanna L. Jenkins, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and
Kamins, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Affirmed.
Cite as 316 Or App 126 (2021) 127
PER CURIAM
In this juvenile dependency case, mother appeals
the judgment asserting jurisdiction over her 14-year-old
child pursuant to ORS 419B.100(1)(c) (“the juvenile court
has exclusive original jurisdiction in any case involving a
person who is under 18 years of age and * * * [w]hose condi-
tion or circumstances are such as to endanger the welfare
of the person or of others”). She argues that the evidence at
the hearing was inadequate to support the court’s finding
of jurisdiction on the basis that “mother’s parenting skills
and abilities are insufficient to safely provide for the child’s
particular needs.” More specifically, she contends that the
evidence was insufficient to establish that her parenting
exposed her child to a current, nonspeculative risk of serious
harm. See Dept. of Human Services v. C. A. M., 294 Or App
605, 615, 432 P3d 1175 (2018) (“A child’s welfare is endan-
gered under the statute if conditions and circumstances
give rise to a current threat of serious loss or injury to the
child.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)). Because mother
used inappropriate physical discipline during an argument
with child, causing child to run away from home, and child
testified that she would run away again if returned to
mother’s care, there is evidence to support the juvenile court’s
finding. As a result, the conclusion that, absent jurisdiction,
there was a reasonable likelihood of harm to child’s welfare
due to mother’s inability to care for child’s particular needs
was legally permissible. See id. (“The key inquiry in deter-
mining whether conditions or circumstances warrant juris-
diction is whether, under the totality of the circumstances,
there is a reasonable likelihood of harm to the welfare of the
child.” (Citation omitted.)).
Affirmed.