Dept. of Human Services v. A. T.

── Dept. of Human Services v. A. T. ── Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon Date: May 13, 2026 Author: Egan Category: General No. 397 May 13, 2026 399 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of C. V., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. A. T. and K. V., Appellants. Multnomah County Circuit Court 24JU05821; A188495 (Control), A188260 In the Matter of L. V., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. A. T. and K. V., Appellants. Multnomah County Circuit Court 24JU05825; A188497, A188261 Morgan Wren Long, Judge. Argued and submitted March 19, 2026. Christa Obold Eshleman argued the cause for appellant A. T. Also on the brief was Youth, Rights & Justice. Tiffany Keast, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant K. V. Also on the briefs was Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, Oregon Public Defense Commission. Stacy M. Chaffin, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, and Paul L. Smith, Solicitor General. 400 Dept. of Human Services v. A. T. Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, Egan, Judge, and Pagán, Judge. EGAN, J. Reversed. Cite as 349 Or App 399 (2026) 401 EGAN, J. In this consolidated juvenile dependency case, par- ents appeal jurisdiction and disposition judgments concern- ing their children, L and C, who were 11 months old and two years old, respectively, at the time of the jurisdiction trial. In nine assignments of error, father challenges the assertion of jurisdiction as to each child, the bases on which the juvenile court asserted jurisdiction over each child, and the part of each judgment that ordered father to undergo a psychological evaluation. In two assignments of error, mother challenges the assertion of dependency jurisdiction as to each child. Finding that the evidence in the record was insufficient to support the assertion of jurisdiction over the children, we reverse. We review the juvenile court’s assertion of depen- dency jurisdiction for sufficient evidence to support its judg- ment. Dept. of Human Services v. N. L. B., 306 Or App 93, 96, 473 P3d 610, rev den, 367 Or 220 (2020). In doing so, we “view the evidence, as supplemented and buttressed by per- missible derivative inferences, in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s disposition and assess whether, when so viewed, the record was legally sufficient to permit the outcome.” Dept. of Human Services v. T. L. H. S., 292 Or App 708, 709, 425 P3d 775 (2018). In November 2024, Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS) petitioned the juvenile court to take depen- dency jurisdiction over L and C following the hospitalization of L with symptoms consistent with non-accidental abusive head trauma when she was just three months old. The inju- ries required emergency surgical intervention, and L has ongoing needs related to the injuries and intervention. Tests revealed the presence of both chronic and acute bleeding in subdural hematomas, suggesting at least two separate epi- sodes of abuse significant enough to cause life-threatening brain injuries. On the morning of the hospitalization, L had been at various stages in the sole care of all three adult caregivers living in the home at the time: mother, father, and grand- mother. An ODHS investigation determined that there was 402 Dept. of Human Services v. A. T. no evidence to support that mother or grandmother inflicted L’s injuries and that there was no