In the Matter of J. S., aka J. W. S., a Child.
C. E., aka C. B. E., Appellant. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, and J. S., aka J. W. S., Respondent, In the Matter of J. W., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, and J . W., Respondent,
C. E., Appellant.
Submitted September 12, 2017
County Circuit Court 1000398, 1100301; Petition Number
14JU273, 14JU272, Luke A. Stanton, Judge pro tempore.
Or. 650] Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate
Section, and Holly Telerant, Deputy Public Defender, Offce of
Public Defense Services, fled the brief for appellant C. E.
Fitch fled the brief for respondents J. S. and J. W.
C. Lucas, Assistant Attorney General, waived appearance for
respondent Dept. of Human Services.
Garrett, Presiding Judge, and Powers, Judge, and Wollheim,
consolidated appeal, father appeals judgments changing the
permanency plans for his children B and N away from
reunification. Father argues that the juvenile court
erroneously relied upon facts extrinsic to the jurisdictional
bases in determining that he had not made sufficient progress
toward reunification. Specifically, father argues that the
evidence that he was indicted for promoting prostitution and
that his children have special needs was extrinsic to the
bases for jurisdiction, which include inappropriate
discipline and domestic violence in the presence of children
in his care. Held: The juvenile court did not err.
When a jurisdictional judgment and attached documentation
specifically identify a potential cause underlying a
jurisdictional finding, it can be fairly inferred that the
identified cause will be a referent for measuring the
parent's progress. Because the original case plan fled
concurrently with the jurisdictional judgment identified
father's controlling behavior and pursuit of unhealthy
relationships as an underlying concern, the trial court
properly considered father's involvement in his romantic
partner's prostitution when assessing whether the threat
of domestic violence persists. Additionally, because the
original case plan specified that father must utilize
services to the extent necessary to manage his children's
behavior, the particular needs of those children were not
extrinsic to the basis for jurisdiction.
Or. 651] GARRETT, P.J.
consolidated appeal, father appeals from permanency judgments
in which the juvenile court changed the permanency plans for
his two children, B and N, away from
reunification. Father's sole argument on appeal is
that the juvenile court erroneously considered facts
extrinsic to the bases for jurisdiction in determining that
father had failed to make sufficient progress to ameliorate
those bases. We conclude that the juvenile court did not err
the parties request de novo review, and we conclude
that the case is not one that warrants such review.
See ORAP 5.40(8)(c); ORS 19.415(3)(b). "Whether
a juvenile court erred by relying on facts extrinsic to a
jurisdictional judgment is a legal question that we review
for errors of law." Dept. of Human Services v. T.
L.. 287 Or.App. 753, 755, __P.3d__(2017) (internal
quotation marks omitted). In so doing, "we defer to the
juvenile court's explicit findings of historical fact if
those findings are supported by any evidence in the record,
and we assume that the juvenile court implicitly found
predicate facts necessary to support its disposition."
Dept. of Human Services v. S. M. H., 283 Or.App.
295, 297, 388 P.3d 1204 (2017).
September 2014, the Department of Human Services (DHS)
removed B and N from father's home after father was
arrested for assaulting his then-wife in the presence of
children in his care. Father was subsequently convicted of
felony fourth-degree assault and reckless endangerment.
Father later admitted that, during the incident, he was under
the influence of alcohol and prescription medications.
to DHS reports, father's then-wife, along with several of
his former romantic partners, described father as abusive and
controlling and said that father had subjected them to
physical and verbal abuse. In addition, a report stated that
father had been "physically abusive with all of the
children in his care, " and his methods of
"discipline" included striking the children in the
head and face with "sticks, spoons, belts, and other
objects." A DHS worker [288 Or. 652] also described
father as "domineering with his children, " stating
that, although father ...