In the Matter of A. M., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent,
A. F., Appellant. In the Matter of M. F., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent,
A. F., Appellant. In the Matter of A. M., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent,
A. F., Appellant. In the Matter of J. F., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent,
A. F., Appellant. In the Matter of R. F., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent,
A. F., Appellant
Argued and Submitted October 15, 2014.
2013800841, 2013800842, 2013800843, 2013800844, 2013800845. Multnomah County Circuit Court. Petition Number 109782M. Katherine E. Tennyson, Judge.
Megan L. Jacquot argued the case and filed the brief for appellant.
Michael S. Shin, Senior Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General.
Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Nakamoto, Judge, and Egan, Judge.
[268 Or.App. 343] EGAN, J.
In this juvenile dependency case, father appeals a judgment establishing jurisdiction over his five children. Father argues that the evidence is factually insufficient to support jurisdiction. Father also argues that the court erred by denying him the opportunity to present evidence that he did not commit sexual abuse despite his criminal conviction; we reject that argument without discussion. We conclude that, because the juvenile court was required to consider whether the challenged allegations in mother's stipulation continued to persist at the time of the jurisdictional hearing, the court must reconsider its decision. Accordingly, we vacate and remand.
When reviewing a juvenile court's jurisdictional determination, we view the evidence, as supplemented and buttressed by permissible derivative inferences, in the light most favorable to the juvenile court's ruling and then assess whether the record was legally sufficient to permit the outcome that was reached. Dept. of Human Services v. N. P.,
257 Or.App. 633, 639, 307 P.3d 444 (2013). We are bound by the juvenile court's factual findings unless there is no evidence to support those findings. Dept. of Human Services v. C. Z., 236 Or.App. 436, 442, 236 P.3d 791 (2010). Father does not request that we exercise our discretion to engage in de novo review, and we decline to do so. ORS 19.415(3)(b); ORAP 5.40(8)(c) (we conduct de novo review only in " exceptional" cases).
The following facts are undisputed. In January 2013, the Department of Human Services (DHS) filed a petition alleging jurisdiction over father's five children based, in part, on allegations that father had sexually abused his oldest child, A, and other relatives. The state brought a criminal case against father. The juvenile court served father with a dependency summons and postponed the jurisdictional hearing until after the criminal trial. In September 2013, approximately nine months later, father was convicted of multiple counts of sexual abuse. The victim of two of those counts was A. The court sentenced father to 219 months' imprisonment under Measure 11.
[268 Or.App. 344] After father's conviction, the state filed an amended petition, and mother stipulated to the following facts contained in that amended petition:
" 2A. The Father was convicted of 14 counts of sexual abuse in the first degree for [abusing A] and [other relatives]. The mother needs the assistance of DHS and the court in order to access services specifically designed to address sex abuse in the family. She also needs ...