Dept. of Human Services v. G. W. Y. ( 2022 )

497
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
Submitted November 22, affirmed December 29, 2022
In the Matter of G. S. Y.,
a Child.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
G. W. Y.,
Appellant.
Jackson County Circuit Court
21JU05783; A178704
Joe M. Charter, Judge.
Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate
Section, and Elena C. Stross, Deputy Public Defender, Office
of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Jona J. Maukonen, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Kamins, Judge, and
DeVore, Senior Judge.
TOOKEY, P. J.
Affirmed.
498 Dept. of Human Services v. G. W. Y.
TOOKEY, P. J.
In this juvenile dependency case, father appeals
a judgment asserting jurisdiction over his child, G. The
juvenile court found G within its jurisdiction under ORS
419B.100(1)(c) on the following bases: (1) father’s “substance
abuse interferes with his ability to safely parent the child,”
(2) “the child has been exposed to domestic violence by the
father,” and (3) mother “was subjected to domestic violence
by the father and the mother is unable to protect the child
from exposure to father’s violence.” On appeal, father raises
four assignments of error, advancing a combined argu-
ment that the juvenile court erred in finding G within its
jurisdiction, because the evidence is legally insufficient to
support those bases. Having reviewed the record to deter-
mine whether it permitted the juvenile court to find that
“the child’s condition or circumstances gave rise to a current
threat of serious loss or injury to the child and that there
is a reasonable likelihood that the threat will be realized,”
Dept. of Human Services v. A. J. G., 304 Or App 221, 224,
465 P3d 293, rev den, 366 Or 826 (2020), and “view[ing] the
evidence, as supplemented and buttressed by permissible
derivative inferences, in the light most favorable to the trial
court’s disposition,” Dept. of Human Services v. N. P., 257
Or App 633, 639, 307 P3d 444 (2013), we conclude that the
juvenile court did not err in finding G within its jurisdiction
under ORS 419B.100(1)(c), and we affirm.
Affirmed.