DocketNumber: 14JU00716; A158545
Citation Numbers: 272 Or. App. 327, 355 P.3d 206
Judges: Hadlock, Sercombe, Tookey
Filed Date: 7/15/2015
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 9/9/2022
In this dependency case, parents appeal a permanency judgment in which the juvenile court continued jurisdiction and wardship over their daughter, H.
For “a juvenile court to take jurisdiction over a child pursuant to ORS 419B.100(1)(c), the child’s condition or circumstances must give rise to a current threat of serious loss or injury that is reasonably likely to be realized.” Dept. of Human Services v. L. C., 267 Or App 731, 741, 343 P3d 645 (2014). Furthermore, a wardship cannot continue “if the jurisdictional facts on which it is based have ceased to exist.” State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Gates, 96 Or App 365, 372, 774 P2d 484, rev den, 308 Or 315 (1989). Thus, when a parent “moves to dismiss the juvenile court’s jurisdiction at a review hearing, [the Department of Human Services (DHS)] bears the burden of proving that continued jurisdiction is warranted.” L. C., 267 Or App at 741. To satisfy that burden, DHS must prove that “the factual bases for jurisdiction persist to a degree that they pose a current threat of serious loss or injury that is reasonably likely to be realized.” Dept. of Human Services v. J. M., 260 Or App 261, 267, 317 P3d 402 (2013).
At the permanency hearing in this case, DHS appears to have proceeded, and the juvenile court appears to have ruled, based in large part on an understanding of
Reversed and remanded with instructions to terminate wardship.
The court terminated the wardship of two of parents’ other children, N and J.