Dept. of Human Services v. G. W. Y.

323 Or. App. 497

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: December 29, 2022
• Docket: A178704
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1). Submitted November 22, affirmed December 29, 2022

In the Matter of G. S. Y., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. G. W. Y., Appellant. Jackson County Circuit Court 21JU05783; A178704

Joe M. Charter, Judge. Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Elena C. Stross, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jona J. Maukonen, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Kamins, Judge, and DeVore, Senior Judge. TOOKEY, P. J. Affirmed. 498 Dept. of Human Services v. G. W. Y.

TOOKEY, P. J. In this juvenile dependency case, father appeals a judgment asserting jurisdiction over his child, G. The juvenile court found G within its jurisdiction under ORS 419B.100(1)(c) on the following bases: (1) father’s “substance abuse interferes with his ability to safely parent the child,” (2) “the child has been exposed to domestic violence by the father,” and (3) mother “was subjected to domestic violence by the father and the mother is unable to protect the child from exposure to father’s violence.” On appeal, father raises four assignments of error, advancing a combined argu- ment that the juvenile court erred in finding G within its jurisdiction, because the evidence is legally insufficient to support those bases. Having reviewed the record to deter- mine whether it permitted the juvenile court to find that “the child’s condition or circumstances gave rise to a current threat of serious loss or injury to the child and that there is a reasonable likelihood that the threat will be realized,” Dept. of Human Services v. A. J. G., 304 Or App 221, 224, 465 P3d 293, rev den, 366 Or 826 (2020), and “view[ing] the evidence, as supplemented and buttressed by permissible derivative inferences, in the light most favorable to the trial court’s disposition,” Dept. of Human Services v. N. P., 257 Or App 633, 639, 307 P3d 444 (2013), we conclude that the juvenile court did not err in finding G within its jurisdiction under ORS 419B.100(1)(c), and we affirm. Affirmed.