Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re M. L. F.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

June 13, 2018

In the Matter of M. L. F., a Child.
v.
T. F., Appellant. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent,

          Submitted January 29, 2018

          Lane County Circuit Court 17JU02851; A165690 Josephine H. Mooney, Judge. (Judgment) Karrie K. McIntyre, Judge. (Amended Judgment)

          Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Shannon Flowers, Deputy Public Defender, Offce of Public Defense Services, fled the brief for appellant.

          Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Inge D. Wells, Assistant Attorney General, fled the brief for respondent.

          Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Garrett, Judge, and Powers, Judge.

         Case Summary:

         Mother appeals a judgment establishing dependency jurisdiction over her child, arguing that the juvenile court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) because Oregon was not the child's “home state” at the time the dependency petition was filed. The Department of Human Services acknowledges that Oregon was not the child's home state as that term is defined in the UCCJEA, but asserts that the juvenile court had subject matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA's “temporary emergency jurisdiction” provision. Held: Oregon was not the child's home state under the UCCJEA. Further, nothing in the record indicates that the parties asked the court to take temporary emergency jurisdiction, and there is no indication that that is the reason that the juvenile court concluded that it had subject matter jurisdiction to act. Accordingly, the juvenile court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA.

         Reversed.

          [292 Or.App 357] ORTEGA, P. J.

         Mother appeals a judgment asserting dependency jurisdiction over her child, M, challenging the juvenile court's subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA).[1]She argues that Oregon was not M's "home state" under the UCCJEA, and that no other provision of the UCCJEA granted subject matter jurisdiction to an Oregon court. The Department of Human Services (DHS) concedes that Oregon was not M's home state as that term is defined by the UCCJEA. Nevertheless, DHS claims that the juvenile court had "temporary emergency jurisdiction" under ORS 109.751 and, because nothing has happened in the meantime to alter that status, Oregon courts have subject matter jurisdiction in this matter. We conclude that there is no indication that the trial court took temporary emergency jurisdiction and reverse.

         It is undisputed that M's father brought M to Oregon from Louisiana in January 2017. DHS petitioned the court for dependency jurisdiction in April 2017, alleging that mother's substance abuse interfered with her ability to safely parent M, that mother failed to meet M's basic needs, and that she exposed M to domestic violence and to unsafe people and caregivers.[2] At the jurisdictional hearing, mother challenged the court's subject matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, asking the court to dismiss the petition. In particular, mother noted that the dependency petition had been filed less than six months after father moved to Oregon with M and that, under the UCCJEA, Oregon was not the "home state" for purposes of jurisdiction. M's attorney and father's attorney argued that the jurisdictional challenge was either untimely or had been waived, and DHS asserted that "jurisdiction is proper pursuant to [ORS] 419B.803 [(1)](b), that there is no timeframe under which [the juvenile] [292 Or.App 358] court needs to consider when a child is subject to a petition under 419B.100." DHS explained that, in its view, under ORS 4l9B.8O3(1)(b), when the court is considering whether to take jurisdiction under ORS 419B.100, "all that you have to meet for jurisdiction is * * * that the child is under [the] age of 12, and the subject of a petition filed pursuant to 419B.100." Mother disagreed, arguing that UCCJEA subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time and that "UCCJEA jurisdiction is more limited" than jurisdiction under ORS 419B.100.

         The court denied mother's motion without explanation. Mother then admitted to the allegation that her substance abuse interfered with her ability to safely parent M. The rest of the allegations were dismissed. Mother appeals the jurisdictional judgment that followed, reprising her argument that the juvenile court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA.

         The UCCJEA's general jurisdictional provision provides:

"(1) Except as otherwise provided in ORS 109.751, a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial child ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.