State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Gardner

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Gardner

770 P.2d 79, 95 Or. App. 540, 1989 Ore. App. LEXIS 249

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 8, 1989

DocketD8611-81894; CA A44884

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 770 P.2d 79 (State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Gardner) 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

State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Gardner, 770 P.2d 79, 95 Or. App. 540, 1989 Ore. App. LEXIS 249 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

DEITS, J.

Father appeals from a trial court judgment that made his daughter, Elizabeth, a ward of the court, temporarily committed her to CSD for placement and supervision in foster care and ordered father to participate in drug, alcohol and sexual offender treatment and evaluation under ORS 419.507. We review de novo, ORS 419.561(4), and affirm.

CSD alleged that the juvenile court had jurisdiction pursuant to ORS 419.476(1),¹ because the child’s condition and circumstances were such as to endanger her welfare. Specifically, it alleged that she had been sexually molested by her father and that he had no adequate explanation for bodily pain and bruises suffered by her.² Hearings were held on May 22, and June 1, 1987, and an order was entered on June 11, 1987. The court held that the state had proven that father had sexually molested the child and that he had no adequate explanation for the bruises but that the state did not prove the allegation of pain suffered by the child.

Father assigns error to the trial court’s admission of certain portions of the testimony of Bowcutt and Green, assistant teachers at a Head Start program, and Byrne, a CSD caseworker, each of whom testified as to statements made by the child. Father asserts that the testimony was hearsay and that there is no authority for its admission.

It is unnecessary to decide whether it was admissible. Jurisdiction of the juvenile court may be established by a [543]*543preponderance of the evidence. ORS 419.500. Even assuming that all of the evidence to which father objects should have been excluded, we find, on de novo review, that the remaining evidence establishes the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.³

Affirmed.

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

DEITS, J.

Father appeals from a trial court judgment that made his daughter, Elizabeth, a ward of the court, temporarily committed her to CSD for placement and supervision in foster care and ordered father to participate in drug, alcohol and sexual offender treatment and evaluation under ORS 419.507. We review de novo, ORS 419.561(4), and affirm.

CSD alleged that the juvenile court had jurisdiction pursuant to ORS 419.476(1),¹ because the child’s condition and circumstances were such as to endanger her welfare. Specifically, it alleged that she had been sexually molested by her father and that he had no adequate explanation for bodily pain and bruises suffered by her.² Hearings were held on May 22, and June 1, 1987, and an order was entered on June 11, 1987. The court held that the state had proven that father had sexually molested the child and that he had no adequate explanation for the bruises but that the state did not prove the allegation of pain suffered by the child.

Father assigns error to the trial court’s admission of certain portions of the testimony of Bowcutt and Green, assistant teachers at a Head Start program, and Byrne, a CSD caseworker, each of whom testified as to statements made by the child. Father asserts that the testimony was hearsay and that there is no authority for its admission.

It is unnecessary to decide whether it was admissible. Jurisdiction of the juvenile court may be established by a [543]*543preponderance of the evidence. ORS 419.500. Even assuming that all of the evidence to which father objects should have been excluded, we find, on de novo review, that the remaining evidence establishes the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.³

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

770 P.2d 79, 95 Or. App. 540, 1989 Ore. App. LEXIS 249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-juvenile-department-v-gardner-orctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack