State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Robinson

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Robinson

698 P.2d 68, 73 Or. App. 205, 1985 Ore. App. LEXIS 2823

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 10, 1985

Docket1993; CA A31543

StatusPublished

This text of 698 P.2d 68 (State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Robinson) 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. Robinson, 698 P.2d 68, 73 Or. App. 205, 1985 Ore. App. LEXIS 2823 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Mother appeals an order finding jurisdiction over her three minor children (two daughters and a son) and granting wardship to Children’s Services Division. We reverse.

This case stems from episodes of sexual contact between the two daughters and a 15-year-old male babysitter who was the son of mother’s close friend. Typically, on two nights each month, the babysitter and the children would all fall asleep on a hide-a-bed while watching T.V. The trial court found jurisdiction under ORS 419.476(1) (c) and (e), concluding — apparently as a matter of law — that, by allowing the children to sleep on a hide-a-bed with a 15-year-old post-pubescent male, mother was “setting them up” for child abuse.

Reviewing de novo, we find no evidence that mother had any actual knowledge that her daughters were being abused. The record depicts mother as a caring, responsible parent, concerned about every aspect of her children’s well being. She was active in many community activities involving children. Before this incident, she had taken the children to a counselor for instruction in preventing abuse, and, when the present abuse came to light, she immediately involved them in further counseling. We are unaided by any credibility findings by the trial court. Thus, we have no basis for not believing the testimony of mother and her witnesses.

The facts simply do not establish that mother has “endangered” the welfare of her children or has failed to provide the necessary “care, guidance and protection.”

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM

Mother appeals an order finding jurisdiction over her three minor children (two daughters and a son) and granting wardship to Children’s Services Division. We reverse.

This case stems from episodes of sexual contact between the two daughters and a 15-year-old male babysitter who was the son of mother’s close friend. Typically, on two nights each month, the babysitter and the children would all fall asleep on a hide-a-bed while watching T.V. The trial court found jurisdiction under ORS 419.476(1) (c) and (e), concluding — apparently as a matter of law — that, by allowing the children to sleep on a hide-a-bed with a 15-year-old post-pubescent male, mother was “setting them up” for child abuse.

Reviewing de novo, we find no evidence that mother had any actual knowledge that her daughters were being abused. The record depicts mother as a caring, responsible parent, concerned about every aspect of her children’s well being. She was active in many community activities involving children. Before this incident, she had taken the children to a counselor for instruction in preventing abuse, and, when the present abuse came to light, she immediately involved them in further counseling. We are unaided by any credibility findings by the trial court. Thus, we have no basis for not believing the testimony of mother and her witnesses.

The facts simply do not establish that mother has “endangered” the welfare of her children or has failed to provide the necessary “care, guidance and protection.”

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

698 P.2d 68, 73 Or. App. 205, 1985 Ore. App. LEXIS 2823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-juvenile-department-v-robinson-orctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack