Dept. of Human Services v. C. O. ( 2024 )

528 January 31, 2024 No. 67
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
STATE OF OREGON
In the Matter of A. J. O.,
a Child.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
C. O.
and Y. E.,
Appellants.
Washington County Circuit Court
22JU04737; A181604 (Control)
In the Matter of O. O.,
a Child.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
C. O.
and Y. E.,
Appellants.
Washington County Circuit Court
22JU04738; A181605
Thomas A. Goldman, Judge pro tem.
Submitted November 30, 2023.
Kristen G. Williams filed the brief for appellant C. O.
Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate
Section, and Holly Telerant, Deputy Public Defender, Office
of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant Y. E.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 330 Or App 528 (2024) 529
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin
Gutman, Solicitor General, and Emily N. Snook, Assistant
Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, and Mooney, Judge, and
Pagán, Judge.
PAGÁN, J.
Affirmed.
530 Dept. of Human Services v. C. O.
PAGÁN, J.
In these consolidated dependency cases, mother
and father challenge juvenile court judgments that estab-
lished dependency jurisdiction over their two children, O
and A.1 The juvenile court took jurisdiction over the chil-
dren pursuant ORS 419B.100(1)(c), having determined that
the children’s conditions or circumstances endangered their
welfare. On appeal, parents assert that the evidence failed
to support the jurisdictional determinations as to O and A.
However, we conclude that evidence in the record is legally
sufficient to support the juvenile court’s determination.
Accordingly, we affirm.
“To establish a basis for juvenile court jurisdiction
for purposes of ORS 419B.100(1)(c), the state must prove, by
a preponderance of the evidence, ORS 419B.310(3), that a
child’s welfare is endangered because, under the totality of
the circumstances, there is a current threat of serious loss
or injury to the child that is reasonably likely to be real-
ized.” Dept. of Human Services v. K. C. F., 282 Or App 12, 19,
383 P3d 931 (2016) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). Additionally, “[t]here must be a nexus between the
parent’s conduct or condition and harm to the child” and “[t]
he threat of serious harm to the child cannot be specula-
tive.” Id. at 19-20.
Here, the juvenile court took jurisdiction after
determining that the children’s conditions or circumstances
endangered their welfare. The evidence in the record sup-
ports that determination. DHS removed the children from
parents’ care because A was severely malnourished. A’s con-
dition was described to parents by medical providers as life-
threatening. Parents received medical advice to take A in
an ambulance to the hospital, allow her to be admitted to
the hospital, and feed her formula, all of which they ignored.
Further, both children have ongoing medical needs that
require treatment, such as speech therapy, occupational ther-
apy, and physical therapy. However, father does not believe
1
Mother and father have a separate pending consolidated appeal, Dept. of
Human Services v. C. O., Case No. A182040, in which they contest judgments
asserting jurisdiction over O and A on additional bases. That appeal is not before
us now, and we do not address it in this opinion.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 330 Or App 528 (2024) 531
that any ongoing services are necessary and described
them at trial as “complete uselessness.” Additionally, there
is evidence showing that father has significant anger and
impulse control issues that impact his ability to safely par-
ent. Mother deferred to father to make decisions, even when
those decisions placed the children at risk of serious harm.
Thus, taken together, the evidence shows that at
the time of trial, the children were likely to suffer harm in
parents’ care. The record supports the juvenile court’s deci-
sion to take jurisdiction.
Affirmed.