Background
The Oregon Department of Human Services filed a dependency petition concerning seven-year-old K. R. The juvenile court asserted temporary emergency jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act and placed the child in protective custody.
After K. R. was safely placed with her mother in Idaho and no longer faced a present safety threat, the department moved to dismiss its petition. Father objected through counsel but gave no reason for the objection. The juvenile court granted the motion, explaining that Oregon lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to proceed under the circumstances and that any continuing disputes should be resolved in Idaho.
On appeal, father argued that ORS 419B.809(7) required the court to confirm that he had an opportunity to investigate and present a case supporting dependency jurisdiction, or had waived that opportunity, before dismissal. He also argued that ORS 109.751(4) required communication with the Idaho court before the Oregon proceeding was dismissed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that father did not preserve either statutory argument. His unexplained objection to dismissal did not alert the juvenile court or the department that he believed ORS 419B.809(7) or ORS 109.751(4) required additional procedural steps before dismissal.
The court therefore reviewed only for plain error and concluded that no alleged error was plain. It was reasonably disputable what ORS 419B.809(7) required in these circumstances and whether the juvenile court could delay dismissal to comply with it. It also was reasonably disputable whether a failure to communicate with the Idaho court under ORS 109.751(4), assuming such a failure occurred, would prevent dismissal of an Oregon case maintained under temporary emergency jurisdiction.
The court also denied father’s pro se request to take judicial notice of the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act because neither father nor his counsel presented a substantive argument concerning that statute. The judgment dismissing the dependency petition was affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- A bare objection ordinarily does not preserve specific statutory or procedural grounds that were never explained to the trial court.
- Plain error was unavailable because the statutes’ application to dismissal under temporary emergency jurisdiction was reasonably disputable.
- Citing a federal statute without developing a substantive argument did not warrant judicial notice or appellate relief.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that a party opposing dismissal of another party’s dependency petition must identify the legal basis for the objection. Simply stating opposition may not preserve arguments that specific statutes require additional procedures before dismissal.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as permitted by that rule.