Full Opinion

324 October 28, 2026 No. 1056 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 O. G. O., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, and O. G. O., Respondent v. S. R. O., Appellant. Marion County Circuit Court 25JU05681; A190688 Lindsay R. Partridge, Judge. Submitted September 23, 2026. George W. Kelly filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Solicitor General, and Colm Moore, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent Department of Human Services. Ginger Fitch and Youth, Rights & Justice filed the brief for respondent O. G. O. Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Egan, Judge, and Jacquot, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 354 Or App 324 (2026) 325 PER CURIAM In this juvenile dependency case, mother appeals the judgment taking jurisdiction over her child, O. On appeal, mother argues that the juvenile court “erred in find- ing that [O’s] condition or circumstances endangered her.” Specifically, mother argues that “there is no evidence that mother’s drug use has ever been such as to endanger” O. In response, the Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS) “concedes that the juvenile court erred by ruling that [O] was within its jurisdiction based on mother’s use of substances.” See Dept. of Human Services v. J. J. B., Jr., 291 Or App 226, 236, 418 P3d 56 (2018) (“[A] parent’s substance use alone does not create a risk of harm to a child.” (Citation omitted.)); Dept. of Human Services v. A. W., 276 Or App 276, 278, 367 P3d 556 (2016) (“To establish jurisdiction pursuant to ORS 419B.100(1)(c), [O]DHS must present evidence suf- ficient to support a conclusion that the child’s condition or circumstances expose the child to a current threat of serious loss or injury that is likely to be realized.” (Citation omit- ted.)). We agree with and accept ODHS’s concession that the evidence of drug use is legally insufficient to establish a current, nonspeculative risk of harm to O. Accordingly, we reverse the jurisdictional judgment. Reversed.