Dep't of Human Servs. v. S. J. (In re B. J.)

• Docket Number: A181642
• Decision Date: 28 December 2023
• Parties: In the Matter of B. J., a Child. v. S. J., Appellant. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent,
• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals

1

329 Or.App. 723

In the Matter of B. J., a Child.

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
S. J., Appellant.

A181642

Court of Appeals of Oregon

December 28, 2023

Submitted December 4, 2023.

Umatilla County Circuit Court 23JU00033 Eva J. Temple, Judge.

Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Tiffany Keast, 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 Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Powers, Judge.

Affirmed.

2

[329 Or.App. 724]

3

[329 Or.App. 725] ORTEGA, P. J.

Mother appeals a juvenile court judgment asserting jurisdiction over her eight-year-old daughter, B, pursuant to ORS 419B.100(1)(c). Upon filing its dependency petition following B's hospitalization for injuries suffered while in mother's care, the Department of Human Services placed B with mother's sister. Rather than challenging directly the various bases asserted to support the need for dependency jurisdiction, mother asserts that jurisdiction was not proper given mother's acquiescence to that placement. She argues that because there was no evidence that B would not be safe with mother's sister, the department failed to establish a basis for dependency jurisdiction, and she urges us to reverse or, alternatively, to remand for reconsideration based on the totality of B's circumstances. Because the record does not support that mother has made a plan that eliminates the threat of serious loss or injury to B, we affirm.

We state the facts necessary to understand our decision in the light most favorable to the juvenile court's disposition and assess whether, viewing the evidence as "supplemented and buttressed by permissible derivative inferences," the record is legally sufficient to permit its imposition of jurisdiction. Dept. of Human Services v. N. P., 257 Or.App. 633, 639-40, 307 P.3d 444 (2013). Neither party has sought de novo review.

B came into care following an incident in which she was found unconscious and was transported to a local hospital. After a few hours in the emergency room, she was transferred by helicopter to a Portland hospital and ultimately tested positive for fentanyl. Circumstances in the home where they were living were chaotic, as was mother's behavior during the incident and its aftermath. Following her release from the hospital, B was placed with mother's sister, who continued to serve as B's resource parent. At the time of the jurisdictional hearing, mother was living in an apartment with no electricity or heat and had been...