Dept. of Human Services v. B. C. P.

Opinion

66 September 16, 2026 No. 870

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 L. S. R., a Child.

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent,

v. B. C. P., Appellant.

Lane County Circuit Court 25JU02171; A189180 (Control)

In the Matter of A. C. R., a Child.

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent,

v. B. C. P., Appellant.

Lane County Circuit Court 25JU02172; A189181

Valeri L. Love, Judge. Submitted May 21, 2026. Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Holly Telerant, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant.

Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Solicitor General, and Shannon T. Reel, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Egan, Judge, and Jacquot, Judge.

Nonprecedential Memo Op: 353 Or App 66 (2026) 67

EGAN, J. Affirmed.

68 Dept. of Human Services v. B. C. P.

EGAN, J. In this consolidated juvenile dependency case, mother appeals judgments asserting dependency jurisdiction over her children, A and L, who were nine and five years old respectively at the time of the jurisdiction trial. In 10 assignments of error, mother challenges each individual basis on which the juvenile court asserted dependency jurisdiction over each child, as well as the ultimate ruling to assert 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 permissible 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 outcome .” 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 dependency 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, usually and 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 intervention 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). Nor can the risk 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 each child

Nonprecedential Memo Op: 353 Or App 66 (2026) 69

based on mother’s substance abuse impairing her ability to safely parent (4A); mother leaving the children in the care of father when she was aware that father was using controlled substances (4E); mother exposing the children to unsafe people, conditions, and/or circumstances, lacking insight into the danger caused (4F); and mother lacking the parenting skills, knowledge, motivation, and judgment necessary to safely parent due to her substance use disorder and lack of insight into conditions and circumstances that are unsafe for the children (4H). Mother argues that the court erred in doing so because the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that those conditions and circumstances existed or that they exposed the children to a current and nonspeculative threat of serious loss or injury at the time of the jurisdiction trial.

Having reviewed the evidentiary record, we conclude that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the assertion of dependency jurisdiction. As an initial matter, the trial court found that mother lacked credibility and displayed a “complete absence” of a recognition of her own substance use disorder. Mother acknowledged that she still used methamphetamine on a weekly basis, and the trial court found that “[m]other was aware of the fact that she used blue pills which the evidence demonstrates that she knew were fentanyl,” despite her characterizing the use as “social” and declining or dropping out of treatment. The children were present when father died of a fentanyl overdose ; the trial court found that mother lacks insight into the risks of harm and exacerbation of the children’s trauma caused by her own fentanyl use and that of others whom she leaves to care for her children. Though father is deceased, it is the underlying behavior of mother, leaving children in the care of known users of fentanyl and other controlled substances , that forms the foundation of jurisdictional bases 4E and 4F. The record also shows that mother has driven while under the influence of controlled substances with the children in the car and that a family member observed one of the children injure themselves while in mother’s care without prompting an adequate response from mother who was under the influence of controlled substances; it is behaviors such as those which serve as sufficient evidence to uphold 70 Dept. of Human Services v. B. C. P.

jurisdictional bases 4A and 4H. See Dept. of Human Services v. G. E., 243 Or App 471, 479, 481, 260 P3d 516 (2011) (concluding that the juvenile court’s “authority to assert jurisdiction is based * * * on the conditions or characteristics that [the specific facts alleged and proved] demonstrate or exemplify ”). We therefore affirm.

Affirmed.