Dept. of Human Services v. S. G.
Citation
341 Or. App. 119
Court
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided
June 4, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Importance
45%
Practice Areas
Case Summary
No. 501 June 4, 2025 119 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 D. A., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. S. G. and D. E. A., Appellants. Multnomah County Circuit Court 18JU09587; Petition Number 113490; A185927 (Control), A185930 In the Matter of A. A., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. S. G. and D. E. A., Appellants. Multnomah County Circuit Court 18JU09588; Petition Number 113490; A185928, A185931 In the Matter of D. A., aka D. G., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. S. G. 120 Dept. of Human Services v. S. G. and D. E. A., Appellants. Multnomah County Circuit Court 18JU09589; Petition Number 113490; A185929; A185932 Sandra Y. Vallejo, Judge. Submitted April 30, 2025. Aron Perez-Selsky filed the brief for appellant S. G. George W. Kelly, filed the brief for appellant D. E. A. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Philip Thoennes, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Joyce, Judge, and Jacquot, Judge. TOOKEY, P. J. Affirmed. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 341 Or App 119 (2025) 121 TOOKEY, P. J. In this juvenile dependency case, parents appeal from judgments establishing general guardianships over their three children, DA, age 11; AA, age nine; and DG, age five. Mother and all three children are enrolled members of the Makah Tribe, making the case subject to the federal Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 USC §§ 1901-1963, and the Oregon Indian Child Welfare Act, Or Laws 2020, ch 14, §§ 1-66 (Spec Sess 1) (codifying new provisions at ORS chap- ter 419B.600 to 419B.665 and amending various sections of ORS chapters 350, 418, 419A, and 419B). In his first assign- ment of error, father challenges the juvenile court’s deter- mination that parents’ continued custody of the children was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the children. In father’s second assignment of error and mother’s only three assignments of error, they challenge the juvenile court’s determination that guardianship was in the children’s best interests, arguing that the evidence demon- strated that the children needed ongoing contact with the parents to which the proposed guardians, with whom the children were already living in Texas, would not agree. We affirm. Turning to father’s first assignment of error, we conclude that the juvenile court did not err in determin- ing that parents’ continued custody was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the children. We review the juvenile court’s factual findings to determine whether they are supported by any evidence in the record. Dept. of Human Services v. J. G., 260 Or App 500, 504, 317 P3d 936 (2014). We then evaluate whether “the totality of evidence in the record was legally sufficient to permit any rational juvenile court to find that it is highly likely that facts exist indicating that continued custody by the child’s parent is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the Indian child.” Dept. of Human Services v. A. R. E., 340 Or App 73, 76, ___ P3d ___ (2025). The juvenile court may establish a general guardianship over an Indian child only if it determines, among other things, that the parents’ contin- ued custody of the child is likely to result in “serious emotional and physical damage” to the child. ORS 419B.366(4)(a)(C)(i). 122 Dept. of Human Services v. S. G. That determination must be supported by the testimony of at least one expert witness and evidence establishing a “causal relationship” between the particular conditions in the Indian child’s home and the likelihood of serious emotional of phys- ical damage to the child as a result of the parents’ continued custody. ORS 419B.366(4)(a)(C)(i), (b). The juvenile court asserted dependency jurisdic- tion over the children based on mother’s substanc
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. S. G.
Citation: 341 Or. App. 119
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
Date: June 4, 2025
Jurisdiction: SA
This case involves a juvenile dependency matter where the Department of Human Services (DHS) sought to establish general guardianships over three children, D.A., A.A., and D.G., due to concerns regarding their parents' ability to provide a safe environment. The case is significant as it is governed by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and the Oregon Indian Child Welfare Act (OICWA), given that the mother and children are enrolled members of the Makah Tribe.
Key Legal Issues
- Parental Rights: The parents challenged the juvenile court's findings regarding the likelihood of serious emotional or physical damage to the children if they remained in parental custody.
- Best Interests of the Child: The court's determination that guardianship was in the children's best interests was also contested by the parents.
Court's Decision
The Court of Appeals of Oregon affirmed the juvenile court's decision to establish guardianships over the children, concluding that:
- The evidence supported the finding that continued custody by the parents would likely result in serious emotional or physical harm to the children.
- The proposed guardianship arrangement was in the best interests of the children.
Legal Reasoning
The court evaluated the juvenile court's factual findings under the standard of whether they were supported by evidence in the record. The court emphasized the following points:
- Substance Abuse and Domestic Violence: The mother’s substance abuse issues and the father’s inability to protect the children from these issues were critical factors.
- Expert Testimony: An expert witness from the Makah Tribe testified regarding the potential for serious harm to the children if they remained in their parents' custody, citing ongoing substance abuse and unstable housing conditions.
- Best Interests Standard: The juvenile court's determination that guardianship was in the children's best interests was based on the children's established relationships with the proposed guardians and their ability to meet the children's needs.
Key Holdings
- The juvenile court did not err in determining that the parents' continued custody was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the children.
- The proposed guardianship arrangement was deemed to be in the best interests of the children, supported by evidence of their living situation and the willingness of the guardians to facilitate contact with the parents.
Precedents and Citations
- Dept. of Human Services v. J. G., 260 Or App 500 (2014): Established the standard for reviewing juvenile court factual findings.
- Dept. of Human Services v. A. R. E., 340 Or App 73 (2025): Discussed the legal sufficiency of evidence required for establishing serious emotional or physical damage under ORS 419B.366.
Practical Implications
This case highlights the importance of adhering to the Indian Child Welfare Act and the Oregon Indian Child Welfare Act in child custody matters involving Native American families. Legal professionals should note:
- The necessity of expert testimony in cases involving potential harm to children in custody disputes.
- The emphasis on the best interests of the child standard, particularly in cases where guardianship is sought.
- The implications of substance abuse and domestic violence on parental rights and custody determinations.
Overall, the ruling reinforces the legal framework surrounding child welfare and the protections afforded to children under federal and state law, particularly in the context of tribal affiliation.
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