Dept. of Human Services v. R. C.
Citation
341 Or. App. 153
Court
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided
June 4, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Importance
45%
Practice Areas
Case Summary
No. 512 June 4, 2025 153 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1). IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of A. S. C., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. R. C., Appellant. Douglas County Circuit Court 18JU01657; A183944 (Control) In the Matter of S. M. C., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. R. C., Appellant. Douglas County Circuit Court 18JU01658; A183945 Ann Marie Simmons, Judge. Submitted April 30, 2025. Aron Perez-Selsky and Michael J. Wallace filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Inge D. Wells, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Joyce, Judge, and Jacquot, Judge. 154 Dept. of Human Services v. R. C. JOYCE, J. Affirmed. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 341 Or App 153 (2025) 155 JOYCE, J. Father appeals from a judgment granting durable guardianship over his two children, S and A. He assigns error both to that determination and to the juvenile court’s denial of his motion to dismiss. We affirm. We begin with a threshold jurisdictional question, namely, whether the judgment establishing guardianship also constitutes a judgment denying father’s motion to dis- miss.1 It does. The judgment itself is entitled “Judgment Establishing Guardianship.” Yet the judgment incorporates the juvenile court’s letter opinion, which denies father’s motion to dismiss and grants the guardianship. “Generally speaking, incorporated writings are considered part of the writing in which they are incorporated.” State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Brown, 175 Or App 1, 10 n 4, 27 P3d 502, rev den, 332 Or 558 (2001). Thus, the judgment—by incorporating the letter opinion addressing both the motion to dismiss and the motion to establish guardianship—disposes of both those issues and creates an appealable judgment with respect to both. We turn to the merits. Father contends that the juvenile court erred in denying his motion to dismiss juris- diction on the basis that the conditions that led to the chil- dren’s removal had been ameliorated. As the parties both note, in assessing a motion to dismiss, the court must first “determine whether the original bases for jurisdiction con- tinue to pose a current threat of loss or serious injury.” Dept. of Human Services v. T. L., 279 Or App 673, 685, 379 P3d 741 (2016). If they do, the court must then “assess the likeli- hood that that risk will be realized.” Id. Where, as here, the permanency plan is something other than reunification, “a parent seeking dismissal of dependency jurisdiction must prove that the bases for jurisdiction no longer pose a current threat of loss or harm to the child that is reasonably likely to be realized, thereby overcoming the presumption created by the permanency plan that the child cannot return safely to parents.” Id. at 690. 1 ODHS raises the question whether the juvenile court entered a judgment with respect to the denial of the motion to dismiss but does not take a position on that question. Father has simply assumed that we have jurisdiction. 156 Dept. of Human Services v. R. C. The juvenile court concluded that the conditions that led to the children’s removal and juvenile court jurisdiction— father’s anger control problem and physical discipline that resulted in an impairment of the children’s well-being and functioning—had not been ameliorated: “Father’s behaviors continue at an observable level. He expresses frustration at the agency, his [older child], the caseworkers, his previous treatment providers, etc. He speaks about anger control, without seeming to understand his behaviors speak otherwise. He denies certain behav- iors, deflects and minimizes others, and attempts to con- trol the narrative of both his treatment work and the court case. * * * [The children] have suffered severe trauma, have for the second time begun making progress, but are at high risk to experience further trauma. The court concludes that the original bases of jurisdiction for father continue to represent a very real risk of both further loss and further injury, in fact, based on father’s current behaviors the court concludes reunification after a dismissal would almost cer- tainly result in further trau
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 4, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
AI-generated comprehensive summary with legal analysis
Case Overview
Case Name: Dept. of Human Services v. R. C.
Citation: 341 Or. App. 153
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
Date: June 4, 2025
Jurisdiction: SA
This case involves a father appealing a judgment that granted durable guardianship over his two children, S and A, to the Department of Human Services (DHS). The father contested both the guardianship decision and the denial of his motion to dismiss the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.
Key Legal Issues
- Durable Guardianship: The court's authority to establish a durable guardianship when a parent cannot safely care for their children.
- Motion to Dismiss: The father's argument that the conditions leading to the children's removal had improved, warranting dismissal of the jurisdiction.
Court's Decision
The Court of Appeals of Oregon affirmed the juvenile court's judgment, concluding that the father had not demonstrated that the conditions leading to the children's removal had been ameliorated. The court found that the father’s behaviors continued to pose a significant risk to the children.
Legal Reasoning
The court began by addressing a jurisdictional question regarding whether the judgment establishing guardianship also denied the father's motion to dismiss. It concluded that the judgment incorporated the juvenile court's letter opinion, thus addressing both issues.
In assessing the father's motion to dismiss, the court emphasized that the juvenile court must determine if the original bases for jurisdiction still pose a threat of loss or serious injury to the children. The court found that the father had not sufficiently mitigated the risks associated with his anger control issues and physical discipline methods.
Key Findings of the Juvenile Court:
- The father exhibited ongoing anger control problems.
- He failed to recognize the connection between his anger and the harm inflicted on his children.
- Testimonies indicated that the father's disciplinary methods caused significant trauma to the children, undermining his claims of improvement.
Key Holdings
- The juvenile court did not err in denying the father's motion to dismiss jurisdiction.
- The court correctly established durable guardianships, as the children could not safely return to the father's care within a reasonable time frame.
Precedents and Citations
- Dept. of Human Services v. T. L., 279 Or App 673 (2016): Established the standard for assessing the risk of harm in dependency cases.
- State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Brown, 175 Or App 1 (2001): Discussed the incorporation of writings in judicial opinions.
Practical Implications
This case underscores the importance of demonstrating genuine rehabilitation in child custody and guardianship matters. Parents seeking to regain custody must provide clear evidence that they have addressed the issues leading to state intervention. The ruling also highlights the court's commitment to prioritizing children's safety and well-being over parental rights when significant risks remain.
In summary, the Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court's decision, reinforcing the standards for establishing durable guardianships in cases involving parental risk factors. The ruling serves as a critical reminder of the judicial system's role in protecting vulnerable children from potential harm.
Legal Topics
Areas of law covered in this case
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Judicial Panel
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 4, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools