Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
16 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2025 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Rel. Juvenile Department v. Charlesgreen2 sentences2016In Charles/Austin, the Court of Appeals explained that a dependency hearing can result in “a long-term deprivation of custody and a substantial intervention in the parent-child relationship[,]” and the potential intrusion “is so drastic” that parents in dependency cases “have a similar need for representation as do parents facing termination of their rights to their children.” 106 Or App at 633-34 (citation omitted). 2016In Charles!Austin, the Court of Appeals explained that a dependency hearing can result in “a long-term deprivation of custody and a substantial intervention in the parent-child relationship!,]” and the potential intrusion “is so drastic” that parents in dependency cases “have a similar need for representation as do parents facing termination of their rights to their children.” 106 Or App at 633-34 (citation omitted). 5 Former ORS 419.525(2) (1989), repealed by Or Laws 1993, ch 33, § 373, which was in effect at the time of the court’s decision in Geist, is now codified in nearly identical form | 2 | 2 |
Dep't of Human Servs. v. M. F. (In re E.B.)green1 sentence2020F., 294 Or App at 697 (concluding that evi- dence of the child twice leaving the father’s home unnoticed two years before the dependency hearing was insufficient to prove that the father needed the assistance of the court and the state to meet the child’s needs, because no similar incidents occurred after the father installed child-proof door locks, and, thus, the record would not support a determi- nation that the child “currently would be at risk if returned to father’s care” (emphasis in original)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Department of Human Services v. S. P.
green
2 sentences2025Dept. of Human Services v. S. P., 249 Or App 76, 90-91 , 275 P3d 979 (2012) (discussing a number of cases in which we reversed a judg- ment of jurisdiction where there was insufficient evidence that the parent’s behavior created a reasonable likelihood of harm to the child at the time of the dependency hearing). 2025Dept. of Human Services v. S. P., 249 Or App 76, 90-91 , 275 P3d 979 (2012) (discussing a number of cases in which we reversed a judg- ment of jurisdiction where there was insufficient evidence that the parent’s behavior created a reasonable likelihood of harm to the child at the time of the dependency hearing). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Department of Human Services v. E. M.
green
2 sentences2024M., 264 Or App 76, 84 , 331 P3d 1054 (2014) (concluding that DHS must prove both parents are incapable of parenting safely before a court can assert jurisdiction over a child). 2024M., 264 Or App 76, 84 , 331 P3d 1054 (2014) (concluding that DHS must prove both parents are incapable of parenting safely before a court can assert jurisdiction over a child). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State Ex Rel. Juvenile Department v. Cooke
green
2 sentences2009Dept. v. Cooke, 88 Or App 176 , 744 P2d 596 (1987) (holding that ICWA governs a dependency hearing in which the court finds the children within its jurisdiction but does not remove the children’s physical custody from the mother). 2009Dept. v. Cooke, 88 Or App 176 , 744 P2d 596 (1987) (holding that ICWA governs a dependency hearing in which the court finds the children within its jurisdiction but does not remove the children’s physical custody from the mother). | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Dept. of Human Services v. H. B.
neutral
1 sentence2022Dept. of Nonprecedential Memo Op: 322 Or App 97 (2022) 101 Human Services v. M. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Department of Human Services v. C. M.
neutral
2 sentences2018M. , 284 Or.App. 521 , 530, 392 P.3d 820 (2017) (affirming the juvenile court's jurisdiction over a child who had been placed in foster care for nearly seven weeks prior to the dependency hearing, based on an act of violence by the father towards the mother and sister while the child slept in the same room); see also ORS 419B.100(2) (juvenile court shall have jurisdiction under ORS 419B.100(1)"even though the child is receiving adequate care from the person having physical custody of the child"). 2018M. , 284 Or.App. 521 , 530, 392 P.3d 820 (2017) (affirming the juvenile court's jurisdiction over a child who had been placed in foster care for nearly seven weeks prior to the dependency hearing, based on an act of violence by the father towards the mother and sister while the child slept in the same room); see also ORS 419B.100(2) (juvenile court shall have jurisdiction under ORS 419B.100(1)"even though the child is receiving adequate care from the person having physical custody of the child"). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Department of Human Services v. T. L.
green
1 sentence2016Cite as 358 Or 679 (2016) 685 direct appeal remedy for unpreserved inadequate assistance of counsel claims. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Lane v. NOOTH
green
1 sentence2012D., 238 Or App 134 , 241 P3d 1177 (2010), rev den, 349 Or 602 (2011) (declining plain error review of failure to make findings at a dependency hearing and distinguishing review of post-hearing obligations to make findings). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Department of Human Services v. D. D.
green
2 sentences2012D., 238 Or App 134 , 241 P3d 1177 (2010), rev den, 349 Or 602 (2011) (declining plain error review of failure to make findings at a dependency hearing and distinguishing review of post-hearing obligations to make findings). 2012D., 238 Or App 134 , 241 P3d 1177 (2010), rev den, 349 Or 602 (2011) (declining plain error review of failure to make findings at a dependency hearing and distinguishing review of post-hearing obligations to make findings). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State Ex Rel Department of Human Services v. D. T. C.
green
2 sentences2012C., 231 Or App 544, 554-55 , 219 P3d 610 (2009) (reversing judgment of jurisdiction where there was insufficient evidence that the *91 father’s alcohol abuse problem created a reasonable likelihood of harm to the children at the time of the dependency hearing). 2012C., 231 Or App 544, 554-55 , 219 P3d 610 (2009) (reversing judgment of jurisdiction where there was insufficient evidence that the *91 father’s alcohol abuse problem created a reasonable likelihood of harm to the children at the time of the dependency hearing). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State Ex Rel. Juvenile Department v. N. W.
green
1 sentence2010On appeal, we may be—and in this case, we are—called on to decide several issues: whether the allegations in the petition are collectively sufficient, if proven, to establish jurisdiction, Id. at 109, 221 P.3d 174 ; whether any or all of the allegations are proven by a preponderance of the evidence, ORS 419B.310(3); and whether the remedy that the court orders is in whole or in part rationally related to the allegations that the court has found to be proven, State ex rel Juv. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Tomarchio v. Township of Greenwich
green
1 sentence1982Tomarchio v. Township of Greenwich, supra, extended a similar dependency presumption to widowers. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Mikolich v. State Industrial Accident Commission
green
1 sentence1980In that case this court held as follows (at 57, 316 P.2d 812 ): "We have noticed that in the majority of jurisdictions an adverse decision on the merits of a claim, presented by the employee while he was alive, did not bar a dependency claim under the doctrine of res adjudicate, since the parties and rights involved are different and the dependent is not in privity with the injured employee as to the rights assured him." Because the claim of a widow is an independent claim, if a worker died at the end of two years without filing a claim for compensation, his widow would not have three more yea | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.