Background
The Oregon Education Association and Oregon School Employees Association brought a facial rule challenge under ORS 183.400 against portions of an Oregon Department of Human Services rule defining child abuse for investigations involving school employees, contractors, agents, and volunteers. The unions argued that OAR 419-230-0170(2) treated conduct as abuse beyond the statutory definition in ORS 419B.005(1)(a), exceeding the department’s rulemaking authority.
After briefing, ODHS permanently amended the rule to address several challenged provisions, including language making the definition nonexclusive and provisions concerning endangerment and substance exposure. The court held that those amendments rendered the corresponding challenges moot and declined to review them under ORS 14.175 because the former provisions no longer remained in effect, were unlikely to recur, and were unlikely to evade future review.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that ODHS lacked authority to expand the statutory meaning of abuse when adopting rules for school investigations. Reading the statute’s text, context, and legislative history, the court concluded that “negligent treatment or maltreatment” under ORS 419B.005(1)(a)(F) concerns deprivation of a child’s minimum basic needs, particularly physical and medical needs. The statute’s nonexclusive list of food, clothing, shelter, and medical care did not authorize ODHS to add materially different categories of neglect.
The court therefore invalidated the phrase “supervision, protection, or nurturing” in OAR 419-230-0170(2)(c), along with subsections (2)(c)(C), (D), and (E), which addressed lack of supervision and protection, desertion, and psychological neglect. Psychological neglect also could not be justified under the statute’s mental-injury provision because the rule omitted the statutory requirement of cruel or unconscionable conduct. The court did not reach the unions’ alternative constitutional vagueness argument.
Key Takeaways
- An agency’s authority to administer a statutory program does not permit it to expand a controlling statutory definition.
- The statute’s reference to negligent treatment or maltreatment covers deprivation of basic physical and medical needs, not the rule’s separate categories of inadequate supervision, desertion, or psychological neglect.
- Permanent amendments mooted several other challenges because the superseded provisions no longer operated and were not reasonably likely to recur or evade review.
Why It Matters
The decision limits the conduct ODHS may classify as child abuse during school investigations under its current statutory authority. Although ODHS may explain and administer the legislature’s definition, it cannot create additional abuse categories that materially depart from that definition.
The ruling also underscores that Oregon courts may invalidate discrete language and subsections of an administrative rule while leaving unchallenged portions intact. Any broader definition encompassing the invalidated categories must come from the legislature rather than agency rulemaking.