Dept. of Human Services v. A. T.

Summary

The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed juvenile dependency judgments asserting jurisdiction over two children based on serious nonaccidental injuries to one child and the parents’ inability to explain or acknowledge how the injuries occurred. The court held that the record lacked evidence linking the parents’ lack of explanation or acknowledgment to a current, nonspeculative risk of harm, particularly in light of their extensive cooperation with services and the absence of subsequent safety concerns. The court also reversed the related jurisdictional basis concerning the second child and did not reach the challenge to the psychological-evaluation order.

Holdings

1. Dependency jurisdiction requires evidence that, at the time of trial, the child's condition and circumstances exposed the child to a current, nonspeculative threat of serious harm that was likely to be realized. Past harm or a past risk, standing alone, is insufficient.
2. A juvenile court may not assert dependency jurisdiction categorically whenever a child has an unexplained injury and the Department cannot formulate a safety plan without knowing how the injury occurred. A parent's failure to acknowledge or accept responsibility for past conduct does not, by itself, establish jurisdiction; it is relevant only when evidence shows that the failure makes recurrence likely.
3. The court did not reach father's assignments of error challenging the psychological-evaluation orders because reversal of the dependency judgments made those issues unnecessary to decide.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient under ORS 419B.100(1)(c) to establish a current, nonspeculative threat of serious harm warranting dependency jurisdiction over L. and C.
2. Whether the parents' inability or unwillingness to explain or acknowledge that L.'s injuries were inflicted by a caregiver, without additional evidence linking that failure to a current risk of harm, supported dependency jurisdiction.
3. Whether the juvenile court properly asserted jurisdiction under amended bases 4A and 4B as to both children and basis 4C as to C.
4. Whether the court needed to reach father's challenges to the psychological-evaluation orders after reversing the dependency judgments.

Disposition

reversed