Background
The Oregon Department of Human Services sought dependency jurisdiction over mother’s 14-year-old child, K, after a June 2025 domestic disturbance between mother and her husband, W. The record showed repeated domestic-violence incidents in the household, including nine police responses since 2021. K had heard fighting and seen bruises or scratches, although he did not report witnessing the acts that caused those injuries.
After a three-day trial, the juvenile court asserted jurisdiction on two grounds: that mother exposed K to domestic violence, placing him at risk of harm, and that mother was unable to protect K from exposure or the risk of exposure to violence by W. The court rejected separate allegations concerning mother’s allegedly chaotic lifestyle and substance abuse. Mother appealed, arguing that ODHS had not proved a current, nonspeculative risk of serious harm to K.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed. Even assuming that repeated domestic violence created a generalized risk of harm, ODHS presented no evidence establishing a reasonable likelihood that a specific harm would occur to K. The agency therefore failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that K faced a current, nonspeculative threat of serious loss or injury.
The caseworkers testified, based on their training, that exposure to domestic violence can cause effects such as trauma, post-traumatic stress disorder, emotional or psychological stress, impaired brain development, withdrawal, isolation, and difficulty developing healthy relationships. But they did not testify that those effects were present in K, connect K’s particular exposure to any specific type, degree, or duration of harm, or establish that such harm was reasonably likely to occur.
The court emphasized that domestic violence in a home does not automatically establish dependency jurisdiction. Although the evidence supported findings of longstanding domestic violence and mother’s lack of insight into its potential effects, those circumstances alone did not establish the required nexus to a present and reasonably probable serious harm to K.
Key Takeaways
- Evidence that a child has been exposed to domestic violence does not, by itself, establish a current threat of serious harm sufficient for dependency jurisdiction.
- ODHS must identify a specific type of harm and prove both its sufficient severity and a reasonable likelihood that it will occur.
- General training-based testimony about possible effects of domestic violence is insufficient when it is not connected to the child’s individual circumstances.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the individualized proof required before the state may intervene in the constitutionally protected family sphere. A history of troubling household conduct and testimony about harms that can affect children cannot replace evidence connecting the particular child’s circumstances to a current, nonspeculative, and reasonably likely serious injury.