Dept. of Human Services v. R. H. ( 2022 )

383
Submitted April 26, affirmed June 15, 2022
In the Matter of H. H.,
a Child.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
R. H.,
Appellant.
Coos County Circuit Court
20JU06410; A176617 (Control)
In the Matter of C. H.,
a Child.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
R. H.,
Appellant.
Coos County Circuit Court
20JU06411; A176618
512 P3d 1279
Father appeals a juvenile court judgment establishing dependency jurisdic-
tion over his two children, C and H. After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the
court concluded that DHS had proved four jurisdictional allegations as to each
child: that father sexually abused C (creating a risk to both C and H), that father
leaves the children with unsafe care providers, that father lacks the parenting
skills necessary to safely parent the children, and that father has exposed the
children to domestic violence. Father contends that the court erred in asserting
jurisdiction over each child. Father requests discretionary de novo review, partic-
ularly as related to the jurisdictional finding on sexual abuse. Held: The juvenile
court did not err in asserting jurisdiction over each child. The Court of Appeals
declined to exercise discretionary de novo review. Under the normal standard of
review, the juvenile court’s sexual-abuse findings were supported by legally suf-
ficient evidence. It follows that the juvenile court did not err in asserting depen-
dency jurisdiction over the children. As for the other jurisdictional bases, father’s
challenge to those bases was contingent on his prevailing on the sexual-abuse
basis.
Affirmed.
Megan Jacquot, Judge.
384 Dept. of Human Services v. R. H.
G. Aron Perez-Selsky and Michael J. Wallace filed the
brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Inge D. Wells, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before James, Presiding Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge, and
Joyce, Judge.
AOYAGI, J.
Affirmed.
Cite as 320 Or App 383 (2022) 385
AOYAGI, J.
Father appeals a juvenile court judgment establish-
ing dependency jurisdiction over his two children, C and H.
In his first assignment of error, father contends that the
court erred in asserting jurisdiction over C. In his second
assignment of error, father contends that the court erred in
asserting jurisdiction over H. For the following reasons, we
affirm.
The Department of Human Services (DHS) filed a
petition with the juvenile court alleging that conditions or
circumstances were endangering C’s and H’s welfare so as
to bring the children within the court’s jurisdiction under
ORS 419B.100(1)(c). A contested jurisdictional hearing was
held, after which the court concluded that DHS had proved
four jurisdictional allegations as to each child: that father
sexually abused C (creating a risk to both C and H), that
father leaves the children with unsafe care providers, that
father lacks the parenting skills necessary to safely parent
the children, and that father has exposed the children to
domestic violence.1
Father requests de novo review on appeal, partic-
ularly with respect to the sexual abuse finding. De novo
review may be requested in this circumstance. See ORS
19.415(3)(b) (allowing discretionary de novo review in “an
equitable action or proceeding other than an appeal from
a judgment in a proceeding for the termination of paren-
tal rights”). However, it is in our “sole discretion” whether
to grant de novo review, id., and we exercise that discre-
tion only in “exceptional cases,” ORAP 5.40(8)(c). We are
unpersuaded that de novo review is warranted in this case.
Cf. Dept. of Human Services v. T. H., 313 Or App 560, 562,
496 P3d 704, rev den, 368 Or 637 (2021) (denying de novo
review in similar circumstances).
Rather than make new factual findings on appeal,
we therefore “view the evidence, as supplemented and but-
tressed by permissible derivative inferences, in the light
most favorable to the trial court’s disposition and assess
1
Mother admitted to certain allegations as to her, and she is not a party to
this appeal. We limit our discussion to the jurisdictional bases regarding father.
386 Dept. of Human Services v. R. H.
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). Viewed in that
light, we conclude that the evidence in the record—which
we do not describe, as doing so would be of little benefit to
the parties, the bench, or the bar—was legally sufficient to
allow the trial court’s finding regarding sexual abuse.
As for the other three jurisdictional bases—unsafe
care providers, lack of parenting skills, and domestic
violence—father does not appear to seek independent review
of those findings. When a juvenile court makes multiple
findings in support of dependency jurisdiction, a parent who
appeals the dependency judgment may choose to challenge
only the ultimate ruling on dependency jurisdiction—in
which case we will affirm if the evidence supports any one
jurisdictional basis—or may choose to challenge individual
jurisdictional findings independent of the ultimate ruling
that dependency jurisdiction exists. In the latter case, we
may reverse individual jurisdictional findings even if we
affirm the ultimate ruling on dependency jurisdiction. See,
e.g., Dept. of Human Services v. T. N. M., 315 Or App 160,
168, 501 P3d 76 (2021) (concluding that the evidence was
sufficient to support jurisdictional allegations A and F, but
insufficient to support allegations B, C, D, and E, and there-
fore reversing in part and remanding for entry of “a judg-
ment establishing jurisdiction based on allegations A and F
only” and for the removal of “any dispositional orders relat-
ing to allegations B, C, D, or E”).
Here, father assigns error only to the ultimate rul-
ing on dependency jurisdiction as to each child, without sep-
arately assigning error to any individual jurisdictional find-
ings. Father identifies a single “question presented,” which is
whether there was sufficient evidence to establish jurisdic-
tion. In his argument, father addresses each jurisdictional
finding—as he must to challenge the ultimate jurisdictional
ruling, see Roop v. Parker Northwest Paving Co., 194 Or App
219, 236, 94 P3d 885 (2004), rev den, 38 Or 374 (2005)—but
he focuses on the sexual abuse finding and, when he reaches
the other findings, signals that we need review them only if
we have overturned the sexual abuse finding. Specifically,
after addressing the sexual abuse finding, he prefaces his
Cite as 320 Or App 383 (2022) 387
arguments regarding the other jurisdictional findings with
the statement that, “without the finding that father sexually
abused one of the children, the remaining allegations and
evidence are insufficient to support jurisdiction.” (Emphasis
added.) Lastly, father’s only request for relief is that we
“reverse the jurisdiction judgment.”
We take a pragmatic approach to interpreting assign-
ments of error, where interpretation is necessary. See Village
at North Pointe Condo. Assn. v. Bloedel Constr., 278 Or App
354, 359-61, 374 P3d 978 (2016). We also recognize that, in
this context, it may not be entirely clear what the Oregon
Rules of Appellate Procedure require in terms of assigning
error to individual jurisdictional findings. Accordingly, we
take this opportunity to clarify that, if an appellant wants
us to review a particular jurisdictional finding independent
of our conclusion as to whether dependency jurisdiction
exists, the best practice is to assign error to that individual
jurisdictional finding (in addition to assigning error to the
ultimate jurisdictional ruling),2 and then incorporate that
issue into the questions presented, the argument, and the
relief requested. Alternatively, if a party seeks review only
of the ultimate jurisdictional ruling as to a child, it is suf-
ficient and compliant with the rules to assign error only to
that one ruling.
Here, for the reasons previously described, all indi-
cations are that father is seeking review only of the ultimate
jurisdictional ruling and the specific jurisdictional finding
regarding sexual abuse. We understand his arguments
regarding the other jurisdictional findings—unsafe care
providers, lack of parenting skills, and domestic violence—
to depend on his prevailing on appeal as to the sexual abuse
finding. Having affirmed the sexual abuse finding, which
alone gives rise to dependency jurisdiction, we therefore do
not independently address the other jurisdictional findings.
Affirmed.
2
That approach is consistent with the rules for assigning error. See ORAP
5.45(3) (“Each assignment of error must identify precisely the legal, procedural,
factual, or other ruling that is being challenged.” (Emphases added.)).