Department of Human Services v. R. V.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Department of Human Services v. R. V.

287 P.3d 1281, 252 Or. App. 567, 2012 WL 4449468, 2012 Ore. App. LEXIS 1185

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedSeptember 26, 2012

DocketPetition Number 01J110485M; J110485; A150945

StatusPublished

This text of 287 P.3d 1281 (Department of Human Services v. R. V.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Department of Human Services v. R. V., 287 P.3d 1281, 252 Or. App. 567, 2012 WL 4449468, 2012 Ore. App. LEXIS 1185 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Mother appeals a judgment finding her daughter, C, to be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under ORS 419B.100(1)(c) based on allegations that mother had a history of choosing violent or unsafe partners, had knowingly failed to protect C from sexual abuse by mother’s partner, had continued to allow contact between her partner and C, and had possessed pornography within reach of C. Mother argues that the trial court erred in finding that C’s welfare was endangered at the time of the hearing. The state concedes the error. We agree and accept the state’s concession. See State v. S. T. S., 236 Or App 646, 654, 238 P3d 53 (2010) (to establishjurisdiction under ORS 419B.100(1)(c), the state must prove “that there is a current risk of harm and not simply that the child’s welfare was endangered at some point in the past” (emphasis in original)). Accordingly, we reverse.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Mother appeals a judgment finding her daughter, C, to be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under ORS 419B.100(1)(c) based on allegations that mother had a history of choosing violent or unsafe partners, had knowingly failed to protect C from sexual abuse by mother’s partner, had continued to allow contact between her partner and C, and had possessed pornography within reach of C. Mother argues that the trial court erred in finding that C’s welfare was endangered at the time of the hearing. The state concedes the error. We agree and accept the state’s concession. See State v. S. T. S., 236 Or App 646, 654, 238 P3d 53 (2010) (to establishjurisdiction under ORS 419B.100(1)(c), the state must prove “that there is a current risk of harm and not simply that the child’s welfare was endangered at some point in the past” (emphasis in original)). Accordingly, we reverse.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 P.3d 1281, 252 Or. App. 567, 2012 WL 4449468, 2012 Ore. App. LEXIS 1185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/department-of-human-services-v-r-v-orctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack