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 N. A. G.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

December 18, 2019

In the Matter of N. A. G., a Child.
v.
T. D. G., aka T. D. G., Appellant. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent,

          Submitted October 10, 2019

          Lane County Circuit Court 17JU08577; Ilisa Rooke-Ley, Judge.

          G. Aron Perez-Selsky fled the brief for appellant.

          Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and E. Nani Apo, Assistant Attorney General, fled the brief for respondent.

          Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge.

         Case Summary:

         In this juvenile dependency case, father appeals the juvenile court's denial of his motion to dismiss jurisdiction. The juvenile court asserted jurisdiction over father's son, N, in October 2017, based on threats of harm to N from father's physical abuse of N's older brother J, father's use of physical discipline, and father's driving behavior. In March 2019, father moved to dismiss jurisdiction as to N, arguing that there was no evidence that the conditions that initially endangered N persisted. The juvenile court denied the motion. Father appeals.

         Held:

         The trial court erred in denying father's motion. The state did not meet its burden to prove that the factual bases for jurisdiction continue to pose a current threat of serious loss or injury to N that is reasonably likely to be realized.

         Reversed and remanded.

         [301 Or.App. 466] AOYAGI, J.

         In this juvenile dependency case, the juvenile court asserted jurisdiction over father's son, N, in October 2017, based on threats of harm to N from father's physical abuse of N's older brother, father's use of physical discipline, and father's driving behavior.[1] In March 2019, father moved to dismiss jurisdiction, arguing that there was no evidence that the conditions that initially endangered N persisted. The juvenile court denied the motion. Father appeals. Because we agree with father that the state did not meet its burden to prove that the factual bases for jurisdiction continue to pose a current threat of serious loss or injury to N that is reasonably likely to be realized, we conclude that the trial court erred in denying father's motion and, accordingly, reverse.

         FACTS

         "[W]e view the evidence, as supplemented and buttressed by permissible derivative inferences, in the light most favorable to the juvenile court's disposition and assess whether, when so viewed, the record was legally sufficient to permit [the] particular outcome." Dept. of Human Services v. J. M, 275 Or.App. 429, 431, 364 P.3d 705 (2015), rev den, 358 Or. 833 (2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). We state the facts in accordance with that standard.

         N lived with father, mother, and older brother J until he was two years old. When N was two, father was incarcerated. For several years thereafter, N alternated between living with his maternal grandparents and living with mother. Since age five, N has lived with his maternal grandparents.

         When N was seven years old, father was released from prison and moved to Eugene. Six months later, J, who is two years older than N, moved in with father. N continued to live with his maternal grandparents in nearby ...


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.