419B.090
Juvenile court; jurisdiction; policy.
(1) The juvenile court is a court of record and exercises jurisdiction as a
court of general and equitable jurisdiction and not as a court of limited or
inferior jurisdiction. The juvenile court is called “The _________ Court of _________
County, Juvenile Department.”
(2)(a) It is the
policy of the State of Oregon to recognize that children are individuals who
have legal rights. Among those rights are the right to:
(A) Permanency
with a safe family;
(B) Freedom from
physical, sexual or emotional abuse or exploitation; and
(C) Freedom from
substantial neglect of basic needs.
(b) Parents and
guardians have a duty to afford their children the rights listed in paragraph
(a) of this subsection. Parents and guardians have a duty to remove any
impediment to their ability to perform parental duties that afford these rights
to their children. When a parent or guardian fails to fulfill these duties, the
juvenile court may determine that it is in the best interests of the child to
remove the child from the parent or guardian either temporarily or permanently.
(c) The
provisions of this chapter shall be liberally construed to the end that a child
coming within the jurisdiction of the court may receive such care, guidance,
treatment and control as will lead to the child’s welfare and the protection of
the community.
(3) It is the policy
of the State of Oregon to safeguard and promote each child’s right to safety,
stability and well-being and to safeguard and promote each child’s
relationships with parents, siblings, grandparents, other relatives and adults
with whom a child develops healthy emotional attachments.
(4) It is the
policy of the State of Oregon to guard the liberty interest of parents
protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and to
protect the rights and interests of children, as provided in subsection (2) of
this section. The provisions of this chapter shall be construed and applied in
compliance with federal constitutional limitations on state action established
by the United States Supreme Court with respect to interference with the rights
of parents to direct the upbringing of their children, including, but not
limited to, the right to:
(a) Guide the
secular and religious education of their children;
(b) Make health
care decisions for their children; and
(c) Discipline
their children.
(5) It is the
policy of the State of Oregon, in those cases not described as extreme conduct
under ORS 419B.502, to offer appropriate reunification services to parents and
guardians to allow them the opportunity to adjust their circumstances, conduct
or conditions to make it possible for the child to safely return home within a
reasonable time. The state shall provide to parents and guardians with
disabilities opportunities to benefit from or participate in reunification
services that are equal to those extended to individuals without disabilities.
The state shall provide aids, benefits and services different from those
provided to parents and guardians without disabilities, when necessary to
ensure that parents and guardians with disabilities are provided with an equal
opportunity under this subsection. Although there is a strong preference that
children live in their own homes with their own families, the state recognizes
that it is not always possible or in the best interests of the child or the
public for children who have been abused or neglected to be reunited with their
parents or guardians. In those cases, the State of Oregon has the obligation to
create or provide an alternative, safe and permanent home for the child.
(6) It is the
policy of the State of Oregon, in a case involving an Indian child, to
safeguard and promote the Indian child’s connections with the Indian child’s
family, culture and tribe in accordance with the policies regarding Indian
children in child custody proceedings under ORS 419B.600. [1997 c.873 §2a; 1999
c.859 §22; 2001 c.686 §21; 2007 c.71 §112; 2007 c.806 §3; 2015 c.795 §1; 2019
c.514 §1; 2020 s.s.1 c.14 §25; 2021 c.398 §67]
Notes of Decisions
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. L., 379 P.3d 741 (Marion Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016).
· cites it 7× “ORS 419B.090. To strike a balance between those sometimes competing interests, the statutes provide that Oregon’s policy is to remove an endangered *678 child from his or her parents, but to then make reasonable efforts “to allow [parents] the opportunity to adjust their…”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. F. J. M., 370 Or. 434 (Or. 2022).
· cites it 4× “502, it is the policy of the state “to offer appropriate reunification services to parents and guardians to allow them the opportunity to adjust their circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it possible for the child to safely return home within a reasonable time.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. C. H., 373 Or. 26 (Or. 2024).
· cites it 4× “ORS 419B.090(5). Based on the dictionary definitions and that policy statement, we understand “reasonable efforts” as used in ORS 419B.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. T. B., 531 P.3d 718 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 6× “385, and cited ORS 419B.090 to support that ruling. On appeal, father argues that the court lacked authority to order him to transfer the dog to child as an emotional support animal and that none of the ORS chap- ter 419B provisions granted the court authority to do so.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. W. C. T., 501 P.3d 44 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 4× “” 368 Or at 103 (citing ORS 419B.090). As provided in ORS 3.260(1), “The circuit courts and the judges thereof shall exercise all juvenile court jurisdiction, authority, powers, functions and duties.”
State Ex Rel. State Off. for Servs. to Child. & Families v. Mellor, 47 P.3d 19 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 6× “[2] Moreover, we conduct our inquiry not in the abstract but with emphasis on the practical effect of mother's and father's conduct and conditions on D: *25 "ORS 419B.090 demonstrates the broader context of the two inquiries under ORS 419B.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. L.L.S. (In re Z.S.), 413 P.3d 1005 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 3× “I disagree because neither before the juvenile court nor this court has father suggested any other caregiver; because, on the case presented, the juvenile court's analysis was sound; and because I fear that, in construing applicable standards, we forget the child's interest. I…”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T.L., 403 P.3d 488 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 3× “As we have observed, the statutes governing dependency jurisdiction are intended to protect the interests of children and parents and to promote family reunification, in all but extreme cases: “The state policies underlying dependency jurisdiction in Oregon…”
State Ex Rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Shugars, 121 P.3d 702 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 5× “” The legislature has not defined “basic needs” for purposes of ORS 419B.090, and we have not had the opportunity to explore, in this context, the exact meaning of “basic needs.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. D. M. T., 243 P.3d 836 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 8× “Here, DHS concedes that it did not provide reasonable services to father in contravention of the legislative policy, ORS 419B.090(5), and the juvenile court's prior order in this case.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.090(1) — 4 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.090(2) — 16 cases
Dept. of Human Servs. v. F. J. M., 370 Or. 434 (Or. 2022).
“502, it is the policy of the state “to offer appropriate reunification services to parents and guardians to allow them the opportunity to adjust their circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it possible for the child to safely return home within a reasonable time.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.090(2)(a) — 18 cases
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. L., 379 P.3d 741 (Marion Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016).
“ORS 419B.090. To strike a balance between those sometimes competing interests, the statutes provide that Oregon’s policy is to remove an endangered *678 child from his or her parents, but to then make reasonable efforts “to allow [parents] the opportunity to adjust their…”
State Ex Rel. State Off. for Servs. to Child. & Families v. Mellor, 47 P.3d 19 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“[2] Moreover, we conduct our inquiry not in the abstract but with emphasis on the practical effect of mother's and father's conduct and conditions on D: *25 "ORS 419B.090 demonstrates the broader context of the two inquiries under ORS 419B.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. F. J. M., 370 Or. 434 (Or. 2022).
“502, it is the policy of the state “to offer appropriate reunification services to parents and guardians to allow them the opportunity to adjust their circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it possible for the child to safely return home within a reasonable time.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.090(2)(a)(A) — 9 cases
State Ex Rel. State Off. for Servs. to Child. & Families v. Mellor, 47 P.3d 19 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“[2] Moreover, we conduct our inquiry not in the abstract but with emphasis on the practical effect of mother's and father's conduct and conditions on D: *25 "ORS 419B.090 demonstrates the broader context of the two inquiries under ORS 419B.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. L.L.S. (In re Z.S.), 413 P.3d 1005 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“I disagree because neither before the juvenile court nor this court has father suggested any other caregiver; because, on the case presented, the juvenile court's analysis was sound; and because I fear that, in construing applicable standards, we forget the child's interest. I…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.090(2)(a)(B) — 4 cases
State Ex Rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Shugars, 121 P.3d 702 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“” The legislature has not defined “basic needs” for purposes of ORS 419B.090, and we have not had the opportunity to explore, in this context, the exact meaning of “basic needs.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.090(2)(a)(C) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.090(2)(b) — 3 cases
Dept. of Human Servs. v. F. J. M., 370 Or. 434 (Or. 2022).
“502, it is the policy of the state “to offer appropriate reunification services to parents and guardians to allow them the opportunity to adjust their circumstances, conduct or conditions to make it possible for the child to safely return home within a reasonable time.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.090(2)(c) — 6 cases
Dept. of Human Servs. v. W. C. T., 501 P.3d 44 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“” 368 Or at 103 (citing ORS 419B.090). As provided in ORS 3.260(1), “The circuit courts and the judges thereof shall exercise all juvenile court jurisdiction, authority, powers, functions and duties.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.090(3) — 7 cases
Dept. of Human Servs. v. T. B., 531 P.3d 718 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“385, and cited ORS 419B.090 to support that ruling. On appeal, father argues that the court lacked authority to order him to transfer the dog to child as an emotional support animal and that none of the ORS chap- ter 419B provisions granted the court authority to do so.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T.L., 403 P.3d 488 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“As we have observed, the statutes governing dependency jurisdiction are intended to protect the interests of children and parents and to promote family reunification, in all but extreme cases: “The state policies underlying dependency jurisdiction in Oregon…”
State Ex Rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Shugars, 121 P.3d 702 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“” The legislature has not defined “basic needs” for purposes of ORS 419B.090, and we have not had the opportunity to explore, in this context, the exact meaning of “basic needs.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.090(4) — 28 cases
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. L., 379 P.3d 741 (Marion Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016).
“ORS 419B.090. To strike a balance between those sometimes competing interests, the statutes provide that Oregon’s policy is to remove an endangered *678 child from his or her parents, but to then make reasonable efforts “to allow [parents] the opportunity to adjust their…”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. L.L.S. (In re Z.S.), 413 P.3d 1005 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“I disagree because neither before the juvenile court nor this court has father suggested any other caregiver; because, on the case presented, the juvenile court's analysis was sound; and because I fear that, in construing applicable standards, we forget the child's interest. I…”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T.L., 403 P.3d 488 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“As we have observed, the statutes governing dependency jurisdiction are intended to protect the interests of children and parents and to promote family reunification, in all but extreme cases: “The state policies underlying dependency jurisdiction in Oregon…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.090(4)(c) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.090(5) — 56 cases
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. L., 379 P.3d 741 (Marion Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016).
“ORS 419B.090. To strike a balance between those sometimes competing interests, the statutes provide that Oregon’s policy is to remove an endangered *678 child from his or her parents, but to then make reasonable efforts “to allow [parents] the opportunity to adjust their…”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. C. H., 373 Or. 26 (Or. 2024).
“ORS 419B.090(5). Based on the dictionary definitions and that policy statement, we understand “reasonable efforts” as used in ORS 419B.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. D. M. T., 243 P.3d 836 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“Here, DHS concedes that it did not provide reasonable services to father in contravention of the legislative policy, ORS 419B.090(5), and the juvenile court's prior order in this case.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.090(6) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.090(c) — 2 cases
Dept. of Human Servs. v. T. B., 531 P.3d 718 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“385, and cited ORS 419B.090 to support that ruling. On appeal, father argues that the court lacked authority to order him to transfer the dog to child as an emotional support animal and that none of the ORS chap- ter 419B provisions granted the court authority to do so.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.