Dept. of Human Services v. Z. C.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: June 3, 2026
• Docket: A188751
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

310 June 3, 2026 No. 497

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 A. L., aka A. E. L., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Z. C., Appellant. Umatilla County Circuit Court 21JU03960; A188751 (Control) In the Matter of R. L., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Z. C., Appellant. Umatilla County Circuit Court 21JU03961; A188752 In the Matter of A. R., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Z. C., Appellant. Umatilla County Circuit Court 21JU03962; A188753

Eva J. Temple, Judge. (August 7, 2025 Order) Nonprecedential Memo Op: 350 Or App 310 (2026) 311

Robert W. Collins, Jr., Judge. (August 12, 2025 Orders) Submitted April 22, 2026. Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Sarah Peterson, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Solicitor General, and Jeff J. Payne, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, Joyce, Judge, and Hellman, Judge. JOYCE, J. Affirmed. 312 Dept. of Human Services v. Z. C.

JOYCE, J. Mother appeals from the juvenile court’s denial of her motion to dismiss jurisdiction and terminate wardship over her three children. The juvenile court took jurisdiction over the children after mother admitted to allegations that her substance abuse and mental health problems interfered with her ability to safely parent her children. The juvenile court denied mother’s motion to dismiss, concluding that mother had not ameliorated those conditions that caused the children to be in the court’s jurisdiction. We affirm. In reviewing an order denying a parent’s motion to dismiss jurisdiction and terminate wardship over a child, we “assume the correctness of the juvenile court’s explicit findings of historical fact if there is any evidence in the record to support them” and consider “whether those find- ings, including nonspeculative inferences consistent with the findings, are legally sufficient to support its ruling.” T. W. v. C. L. K., 310 Or App 80, 82-83, 483 P3d 1237, rev den, 368 Or 515 (2021). “[A] parent seeking dismissal of depen- dency jurisdiction must prove that the bases for jurisdiction no longer pose a current threat of loss or harm to the child that is reasonably likely to be realized, thereby overcom- ing the presumption created by the permanency plan that the child cannot return safely to parents.” Dept. of Human Services v. T. L., 279 Or App 673, 690, 379 P3d 741 (2016). After reviewing the record, we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to support the juvenile court’s ruling that mother did not meet her burden to prove that the existing bases for jurisdiction had been ameliorated. The court credited and adopted Oregon Department of Human Services’s “facts and arguments.” In particular, the court observed that there had been a “very long history of domes- tic violence, * * * drug and alcohol and marijuana use, sub- stance abuse” between mother and father. The court found that mother continued to engage in substance abuse and that she had not resolved her mental health issues. The evidence supports the court’s conclusion that mother has not sufficiently addressed her mental health issues. When the trial court established jurisdiction in Nonprecedential Memo Op: 350 Or App 310 (2026) 313

2021, mother admitted that her mental health issues inter- fered with her ability to parent the children safely, and in 2023, she was discharged from therapy after failing to par- ticipate. At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, mother testified that she has not engaged in mental health coun- seling outside of narcotics anonymous meetings since that discharge in 2023. She suffers from anxiety and depression, and mother’s caseworker at the time of the hearing testified that mother told her she uses marijuana to self-medicate. At least one of mother’s prior caseworkers testified that moth- er’s mental health issues are exacerbated by her unhealthy relationship with father, with whom she continues to reside. Additionally, the evidence supports the court’s conclusion that mother has not sufficiently addressed her substance abuse issues. Mother has a history of amphet- amine use disorder but as of January 2024 was diagnosed as being in early remission. However, a caseworker testi- fied that father regularly uses methamphetamine in the home in which he and mother (and a younger child) live, and father was found to be in possession of controlled substances shortly before the hearing. Mother also has a diagnosis of cannabis dependency, and at the time of her diagnosis she declined to stop using that drug and did not engage in treat- ment. She continues to regularly use marijuana and consis- tently tested positive for the substance up to the time of the hearing on the motion to dismiss. In light of that evidence, the juvenile court correctly concluded that mother had not carried her burden to demonstrate that she had ameliorated the conditions that caused the children to come within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Affirmed.