Dept. of Human Services v. M. M. P.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
Date FiledOctober 21, 2026
DocketA190600
JudgeEgan
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
No. 1013 October 21, 2026 67
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
STATE OF OREGON
In the Matter of E. L., aka E. P.,
a Child.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Respondent,
and
E. L.,
aka E. P.,
Respondent,
v.
M. M. P.,
Appellant.
Umatilla County Circuit Court
25JU05533; A190600 (Control)
In the Matter of H. M. L.,
a Child.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Respondent,
and
H. M. L.,
Respondent,
v.
M. M. P.,
Appellant.
Umatilla County Circuit Court
26JU00005; A190601
Eva J. Temple, Judge.
Submitted September 23, 2026.
G. Aron Perez-Selsky and Michael J. Wallace filed the
brief for appellant.
Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Solicitor
General, and Jona J. Maukonen, Assistant Attorney
68 Dept. of Human Services v. M. M. P.
General, filed the brief for respondent Department of Human
Services.
Ginger Fitch and Youth, Rights & Justice filed the brief
for respondents children.
Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Egan, Judge, and
Jacquot, Judge.
EGAN, J.
Affirmed.
Cite as 354 Or App 67 (2026) 69
EGAN, J.
In this consolidated juvenile dependency case,
mother appeals judgments asserting dependency jurisdic-
tion over her children, E and H, who were four months and
four years old, respectively, at the time of the jurisdiction
trial. In two assignments of error, she challenges the juve-
nile court’s assertion of dependency jurisdiction over each
child. We affirm.
Because mother challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence, the question before us is purely legal. “We view
the evidence, as supplemented and buttressed by permis-
sible 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 out-
come.” Dept. of Human Services v. T. L. H. S., 292 Or App
708, 709, 425 P3d 775 (2018).
The juvenile court is authorized to assert depen-
dency jurisdiction over a child when the child’s condition and
circumstances expose the child to a current threat of serious
loss or injury that will likely be realized. ORS 419B.100(1)
(c); Dept. of Human Services v. A. L., 268 Or App 391, 397-98,
342 P3d 174 (2015). The petitioner, in this case, the Oregon
Department of Human Services (ODHS), bears the burden
of proof. Id. That burden includes demonstrating a nexus
between the child’s allegedly risk-causing conditions and
circumstances, and a threat of harm to the child of the type,
degree, and duration as to justify juvenile court interven-
tion into the constitutionally protected family sphere. Dept.
of Human Services v. S. D. I., 259 Or App 116, 121, 312 P3d
608 (2013). Proof of harm or risk at some point in the past is
insufficient; the threat must be current at the time of trial.
State v. S. T. S., 236 Or App 646, 654, 238 P3d 53 (2010).
The risk may not be speculative; there must be a reasonable
probability that the risk will be realized. Dept. of Human
Services v. J. H., 292 Or App 733, 738, 425 P3d 791 (2018).
In this case, as relevant to mother, the juvenile court
asserted dependency jurisdiction over both children based
on the parents’ substance abuse, mother’s mental health
issues, and the resulting threat of harm to the children. As
70 Dept. of Human Services v. M. M. P.
to E, the court additionally relied on E’s exposure to con-
trolled substances before birth. As to H, the court addi-
tionally found that the parents lacked the parenting skills,
knowledge, judgment, and/or motivation necessary to safely
parent her. Mother argues that the court erred in doing so
because the evidence was legally insufficient to establish
that those conditions and circumstances exposed the chil-
dren to a current and nonspeculative threat of serious loss
or injury at the time of the jurisdiction trial.
Having reviewed the evidentiary record, we con-
clude that the evidence was legally sufficient to support
the assertion of dependency jurisdiction. The record estab-
lished a history of substance use by both parents, includ-
ing father’s longstanding use of fentanyl and methamphet-
amine and mother’s positive test for methamphetamine and
THC shortly before E’s birth. E’s umbilical cord also tested
positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, and forms of
THC. H’s hair later tested positive for methamphetamine,
and Dr. Jones testified that the result established environ-
mental exposure and that exposure to methamphetamine
created an unsafe environment for a child. The children had
lived with the parents in the grandparents’ home during
part of the relevant period.
Although the grandparents provided substantial
care and protection and complied with the safety plan, the
juvenile court could consider evidence that they had not rec-
ognized the parents’ substance use while the parents were
living in their home. Similarly, mother did not believe that
she posed a risk to the children and intended, if the case
were dismissed, to return to the grandparents’ home with
the children.
The juvenile court could permissibly consider those
circumstances together with mother’s history of reconciling
with father, her having lived with him throughout most of
the dependency proceeding, and the parents’ plan to co-par-
ent until shortly before the jurisdictional hearing. Viewing
the evidence and permissible inferences in the light most
favorable to the juvenile court’s disposition, the record was
legally sufficient to permit the court to conclude that the
Cite as 354 Or App 67 (2026) 71
grandparents’ involvement reduced but did not eliminate
the current risk posed by the parents’ circumstances.
In A. L., we held that the evidence presented by
DHS was insufficient to prove a current risk of nonspecula-
tive harm to the children because the grandparents were the
primary caregivers, were aware of the parents’ substance
abuse problems, and each of the harms alleged by ODHS
were purely speculative. 268 Or App at 400. In contrast, the
evidence here established a sufficient nexus between par-
ents’ circumstances and a current threat of serious loss or
injury to both children that was reasonably likely to be real-
ized. See S. D. I., 259 Or App at 121-22.
Affirmed.