Dept. of Human Services v. C. A. C. ( 2022 )

625
Submitted February 15; jurisdictional judgment reversed and remanded for
entry of a judgment establishing dependency jurisdiction based on allegations
other than allegations 4I and 4J, otherwise affirmed May 18; petition for review
denied October 6, 2022 (370 Or 303)
In the Matter of A. L. C.,
a Child.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
C. A. C.
and S. M. M.,
Appellants.
Lane County Circuit Court
21JU02511; A176802
510 P3d 960
Mother and father appeal from a judgment establishing dependency juris-
diction over their infant child, A, who tested positive for amphetamines at birth
and was removed from their care before leaving the hospital. The juvenile court
took jurisdiction over A, concluding that the state established each and every
allegation made against each parent. Both parents argue that the evidence was
insufficient to support jurisdiction. Held: The state did not meet its burden on two
of its allegations against father—4I, that he engaged in erratic and/or volatile
behavior that interfered with his ability to safely parent A, and 4J, that he was
unwilling or unable to learn the parenting skills necessary to safely parent A.
Jurisdictional judgment reversed and remanded for entry of judgment estab-
lishing dependency jurisdiction based on allegations other than 4I and 4J; other-
wise affirmed.
Debra E. Velure, Judge.
Kristen G. Williams filed the briefs for appellant C. A. C.
Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate
Section, and Sarah Peterson, Deputy Public Defender,
Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant
S. M. M.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Shannon T. Reel, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
626 Dept. of Human Services v. C. A. C.
Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, and Mooney, Judge, and
Pagán, Judge.
MOONEY, J.
Jurisdictional judgment reversed and remanded for
entry of a judgment establishing dependency jurisdiction
based on allegations other than allegations 4I and 4J; other-
wise affirmed.
Cite as 319 Or App 625 (2022) 627
MOONEY, J.
This juvenile dependency case began when the
Department of Human Services (DHS) received a “call of
concern” about a newborn infant, A, for whom drug screens
run on maternal and infant urine as well as on meconium
were positive for “amphetamines.” DHS intervened at the
hospital and removed A from his parents’ care. A was dis-
charged to the care of nonrelative foster care providers. DHS
filed a dependency petition, a trial was held, and jurisdiction
was established after the juvenile court concluded that the
state had established each of the allegations contained in
the petition. Mother and father appeal from the judgment of
jurisdiction that was then entered.
Father assigns error to two of the juvenile court’s
evidentiary rulings, both of which we reject. The parties
correctly agree that the relevance threshold is “very low,”
State v. Hampton, 317 Or 251, 255 n 8, 855 P2d 621 (1993),
and that the juvenile court may consider historical medical
records, including mental health records, along with all of
the evidence as it determines whether to assert dependency
jurisdiction.
Both parents argue that the evidence was insuf-
ficient to support jurisdiction. A detailed discussion of the
circumstances of this case would not benefit the bench, bar,
parties, or the public. Having reviewed the record for any
evidence supporting the juvenile court’s findings of fact,
and whether, as a matter of law, those facts, together with
the facts impliedly found by the court, provide a basis for
jurisdiction, Dept. of Human Services v. C. Z., 236 Or App
436, 442, 236 P3d 791 (2010), we conclude that the juvenile
court properly asserted jurisdiction based on the allegations
concerning mother and on two of the allegations concern-
ing father, 4G (mental health) and 4H (substance abuse).
However, as explained below, we agree with father that the
record is insufficient to support jurisdiction based on allega-
tions that he engaged in erratic and/or volatile behavior that
interferes with his ability to safely parent A. We also agree
with father that there was insufficient evidence to support
the trial court’s factual finding that father was unwilling
628 Dept. of Human Services v. C. A. C.
or unable to learn the parenting skills necessary to safely
parent A, so we reverse that allegation as well.
There was evidence presented that a neighbor had
obtained a civil stalking order against father after he shot
a BB gun in the neighbor’s direction and engaged in other
unwanted contact with her. And father was found to have
several sharp objects in his backpack while at the hospital.
But there was no evidence that father had used, or threat-
ened to use, a BB gun, a sharp object, or anything else to
harm A or any other child. The state did not meet its burden
on the allegation against father that he engaged in erratic
and/or volatile behavior that interferes with his ability to
safely parent A.
Father was cooperative with the nursing and med-
ical staff at the hospital. He asked appropriate questions
about infant care, and he was receptive to suggestions. When
the positive drug screens were brought to his attention, he
disclosed some information that confirmed that A had been
exposed to methamphetamine while mother was pregnant,
which included admitting to his own use. Father, like many
first-time parents, lacked basic parenting skills, but there
was no evidence that he was unwilling or unable to learn
those skills. The state did not meet its burden on the allega-
tion against father that he was unwilling or unable to learn
the parenting skills necessary to safely parent A.
Jurisdictional judgment reversed and remanded
for entry of a judgment establishing dependency jurisdic-
tion based on allegations other than 4I and 4J; otherwise
affirmed.