In the Matter of A. S., a Child.
D. A. S., JR., Appellant DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent,
Argued and Submitted November 6, 2013.
Coos County Circuit Court. 12JV0015. Petition Number 021012AS. Martin E. Stone, Judge.
Reversed and remanded with instructions to terminate the wardship.
Shannon Storey, Senior Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. On the opening brief were Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Valerie Colas, Deputy Public Defender. With her on the reply brief was Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, Office of Public Defense Services.
Cecil A. Reniche-Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General.
Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Nakamoto, Judge, and Egan, Judge.
[261 Or.App. 540] EGAN, J.
Father appeals from a juvenile court judgment after a permanency hearing relating to his daughter, A, assigning error to the court's continuation of the permanency plan of reunification and denial of his motion to dismiss jurisdiction and terminate the wardship. We conclude tat the record is legally insufficient to support the juvenile court's finding that the bases for continued jurisdiction persisted. The grounds for jurisdiction recited by the juvenile court did not pose a current threat of serious loss or injury to A that is reasonably likely to be realized. Therefore, we reverse and remand with instructions to terminate the wardship.
The parties do not request that we exercise our discretion to review the facts of this case de novo, ORS 19.415(3)(b), and we decline to do so. ORAP 5.40(8)(a). Thus, we view the evidence " as supplemented and buttressed by permissible derivative inferences, in the light most favorable to the trial court's [determination] and assess whether, when so viewed, the record was legally sufficient to permit that outcome." Dept. of Human Services v. N. P., 257 Or.App. 633, 639, 307 P.3d 444 (2013).
Pursuant to that standard, we recite the facts consistently with the juvenile court's expressed and implied findings. Father was a resident of the State of Washington when A was removed from mother's care in Oregon in February 2012. DHS petitioned the juvenile court to take jurisdiction over A, pursuant to ORS 419B.100(1)(c). Father stipulated to the juvenile court's jurisdiction based on the following pertinent facts:
[261 Or.App. 541] " g) Further, DHS spoke with [father] on February 24, 2012[,] and he stated his [wife] currently has an open DHS case in Douglas County as to her two children * * *. [Those] children * * * are not in [wife's] care due to [DHS] intervention, although Washington State Child Welfare has determined it would be safe for their newborn son, [G], [t]o remain in their care.
" h) Further, [wife]'s * * * two children were removed from her care in 2009 due to the condition of her home, domestic violence, and [wife]'s drug use.
" * * * * *
" j) [S]ince splitting up with [mother] in September 2010, [father] has not been able to have very much contact with [A]. He last had a face[-]to[-]face visit approximately eight months ago in California. [Father] and [A] need the assistance of DHS to help them reestablish their relationship.
" k) Further, [father] does not have custody of [A] and would be unable to protect her from [mother]'s drug use and neglect."
Before the Oregon juvenile court assumed jurisdiction over A, the Washington Department of Social and Health Services (WDSHS) had opened a dependency case for father's youngest child, G, in Washington. G was initially placed in the custody of wife's grandmother, but father and wife shared a residence with G and wife's grandmother at all times. G was returned to the custody of his ...