Dept. of Human Services v. J. H. (A176197) ( 2022 )

277
Argued and submitted April 1, affirmed June 8, petition for review denied
September 1, 2022 (370 Or 212)
In the Matter of E. H.,
a Child.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
J. H.,
Appellant.
Douglas County Circuit Court
20JU05024; A176197
511 P3d 84
Jason R. Thomas, Judge.
Joel Duran, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause
for appellant. Also on the briefs was Shannon Storey, Chief
Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, Office of Public
Defense Services.
Jon Zunkel-deCoursey, Assistant Attorney General,
argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen
F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General.
Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, and Mooney, Judge, and
Pagán, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Affirmed.
278 Dept. of Human Services v. J. H. (A176197)
PER CURIAM
Father appeals a judgment of jurisdiction over his
daughter, E—16 years old at the time of the jurisdictional
hearing—based on allegations that father had sexually
abused E and that mother was unwilling/unable to protect
E from sexual abuse. Father challenges the juvenile court’s
admission of two items of evidence—a video recording of
an interview of E by police detectives and a Department
of Human Services (DHS) caseworker, in which E detailed
sexual abuse by father, and testimony by E’s grandfather
regarding statements E made to him that father had been
raping her for at least six months. The court admitted that
evidence on the basis that E was a party opponent and there-
fore her out-of-court statements were not hearsay under
ORS 801(4)(b)(A).
A detailed discussion of the facts of the case would
not benefit the bench, bar, or public. Suffice it to say that,
even assuming that father preserved his arguments as to
both items of evidence, the record supports a conclusion that
E was aligned with parents, and adverse to DHS, on the
allegation of father’s sexual abuse. Thus, under the reason-
ing of Dept. of Human Services v. G. D. W., 353 Or 25, 292
P3d 548 (2012), the juvenile court did not err in conclud-
ing that E’s out-of-court statements were the statements of
a party opponent and therefore admissible as nonhearsay
under OEC 801(4)(b)(A) (providing that a statement is not
hearsay if it is offered against a party and is the party’s own
statement).
Affirmed.