Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.100 (2026)

Jurisdiction; bases; Indian children

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

419B.100 Jurisdiction; bases; Indian children. (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (5) of this section and ORS 107.726, the juvenile court has exclusive original jurisdiction in any case involving a person who is under 18 years of age and:

(a) Who is beyond the control of the person’s parents, guardian or other person having custody of the person;

(b) Whose behavior is such as to endanger the welfare of the person or of others;

(d) Who is dependent for care and support on a public or private child-caring agency that needs the services of the court in planning for the best interest of the person;

(e) Whose parents or any other person or persons having custody of the person have:

(A) Abandoned the person;

(B) Failed to provide the person with the care or education required by law;

(D) Failed to provide the person with the care, guidance and protection necessary for the physical, mental or emotional well-being of the person;

(f) Who is a runaway;

(g) Who has filed a petition for emancipation pursuant to ORS 419B.550 to 419B.558; or

(h) Who is subject to an order entered under ORS 419C.411 (7)(a).

(2) The court shall have jurisdiction under subsection (1) of this section even though the child is receiving adequate care from the person having physical custody of the child.

(3) The provisions of subsection (1) of this section do not prevent a court of competent jurisdiction from entertaining a civil action or suit involving a child.

(4) The court does not have further jurisdiction as provided in subsection (1) of this section after a minor has been emancipated pursuant to ORS 419B.550 to 419B.558.

(5) Except as provided in ORS 419B.627, jurisdiction over any child custody proceeding, as defined in ORS 419B.603, involving an Indian child is determined as provided in ORS 419B.627. [1993 c.33 §53; 1993 c.546 §10; 1993 c.643 §5; 2005 c.843 §31; 2011 c.291 §5; 2013 c.1 §61; 2019 c.594 §8; 2020 s.s.1 c.14 §27; 2021 c.398 §68]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 388 cases (166 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Dept. of Human Servs. v. C. M. H., 486 P.3d 772 (Or. 2021).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Dept. of Human Servs. v. C. M. H., 486 P.3d 772 (Or. 2021). · cites it 75× “195(1) (describing when court must “appoint counsel to represent the child or ward in a case filed pursuant to ORS 419B.100”). This opinion uses the term “child” in that generic sense as well.”

Dept. of Human Servs. v. K. W., 476 P.3d 107 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 35× “Further, the juvenile court’s determination that it had dependency jurisdiction was necessarily a determination that mother was unable to adequately care for H under ORS 419B.100. That determination could have bearing on a custody and parenting time decision and is therefore…”

State v. L. P. L. O., 381 P.3d 846 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 24× “That is so, the state argues, because the juvenile court can take dependency jurisdiction only over a child who is under 18, ORS 419B.100. Thus, even if we were to reverse the juvenile court’s decision, the state asserts that the juvenile court cannot now, on remand, enter a…”

Dep't of Human Servs. v. S. P., 275 P.3d 979 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 21× “ORS 419B.100 governs the juvenile court’s subject matter jurisdiction in dependency cases.”

Dep't of Human Servs. v. A. B., 350 P.3d 558 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 27× “476 and, in its place, enacted ORS 419B.100. Or Laws 1993, ch 33, §§ 53,373.”

Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. L., 379 P.3d 741 (Marion Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). · cites it 7× “The juvenile court took jurisdiction over T because, shortly after his birth, each of T’s parents admitted that his welfare was endangered within the meaning of ORS 419B.100(1)(c) 1 by mother’s substance abuse and mental health issues, and by father’s incarceration and substance…”

Dep't of Human Servs. v. W. A. C., 328 P.3d 769 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 10× “According to father, mother’s unilateral admission to alleged wrongdoing by both father and mother — including that “mother was subjected to domestic violence by the father” — should neither conclusively establish facts nor determine the sufficiency of the allegations to…”

Dep't of Human Servs. v. C. Z., 236 P.3d 791 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 6× “090 reflects the legislature’s policy decision concerning juvenile dependency, ORS 419B.100 implements those policies and, in the context of the present case, requires a showing that there exist conditions or circumstances that ‘endanger the welfare’ of the children.”

Dep't of Human Servs. v. A. F., 259 P.3d 957 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 7× “The juvenile court took jurisdiction over father’s children, pursuant to ORS 419B.100(l)(c), on the ground that father’s possession of pornography, including child pornography, endangered the children’s welfare.”

Dep't of Human Servs. v. B. B., 274 P.3d 242 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 14× “, under ORS 419B.100(1)(c). The parties dispute whether the Department of Human Services (DHS) proved that father and mother were endangering the welfare of the children, as DHS alleged in its petition to the court to take jurisdiction.”

Dep't of Human Servs. v. C. J. T., 308 P.3d 307 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 6× “ORS 419B.100(1) provides that “the juvenile court has exclusive original jurisdiction in any case involving a person who is under 18 years of age and * * * (c) [w]hose condition or circumstances are such as to endanger the welfare of the person or of others.”

Dep't of Human Servs. v. N. M. S., 266 P.3d 107 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 9× “However, the latter, that is, mother’s admission that there had been an unexplained (yet nonaccidental) physical injury to one of the children, was the specific “fact” that the court relied on to establish jurisdiction under the former.”

Show all 388 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.100(1) — 53 cases

Dept. of Human Servs. v. C. M. H., 486 P.3d 772 (Or. 2021). “195(1) (describing when court must “appoint counsel to represent the child or ward in a case filed pursuant to ORS 419B.100”). This opinion uses the term “child” in that generic sense as well.”

Dept. of Human Servs. v. K. W., 476 P.3d 107 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “Further, the juvenile court’s determination that it had dependency jurisdiction was necessarily a determination that mother was unable to adequately care for H under ORS 419B.100. That determination could have bearing on a custody and parenting time decision and is therefore…”

State v. L. P. L. O., 381 P.3d 846 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “That is so, the state argues, because the juvenile court can take dependency jurisdiction only over a child who is under 18, ORS 419B.100. Thus, even if we were to reverse the juvenile court’s decision, the state asserts that the juvenile court cannot now, on remand, enter a…”

Dep't of Human Servs. v. T.L., 403 P.3d 488 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).

Dept. of Human Servs. v. F. J. M., 370 Or. 434 (Or. 2022).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.100(1)(a) — 1 case

In re G. V. L., 417 P.3d 517 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.100(1)(b) — 4 cases

Dept. of Human Servs. v. D. E. E., 343 Or. App. 586 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).

Dept. of Human Servs. v. S. E. C., 331 Or. App. 134 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.100(1)(c) — 212 cases

Dep't of Human Servs. v. S. P., 275 P.3d 979 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “ORS 419B.100 governs the juvenile court’s subject matter jurisdiction in dependency cases.”

Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. L., 379 P.3d 741 (Marion Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). “The juvenile court took jurisdiction over T because, shortly after his birth, each of T’s parents admitted that his welfare was endangered within the meaning of ORS 419B.100(1)(c) 1 by mother’s substance abuse and mental health issues, and by father’s incarceration and substance…”

Dep't of Human Servs. v. B. B., 274 P.3d 242 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “, under ORS 419B.100(1)(c). The parties dispute whether the Department of Human Services (DHS) proved that father and mother were endangering the welfare of the children, as DHS alleged in its petition to the court to take jurisdiction.”

Dep't of Human Servs. v. N. P., 307 P.3d 444 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).

Dep't of Human Servs. v. W. A. C., 328 P.3d 769 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “According to father, mother’s unilateral admission to alleged wrongdoing by both father and mother — including that “mother was subjected to domestic violence by the father” — should neither conclusively establish facts nor determine the sufficiency of the allegations to…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.100(1)(d) — 3 cases

Dept. of Human Servs. v. H. C., 344 Or. App. 302 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).

State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. v. Jw, 193 P.3d 20 (Or. 2008).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.100(1)(e) — 5 cases

Dep't of Human Servs. v. A. B., 350 P.3d 558 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). “476 and, in its place, enacted ORS 419B.100. Or Laws 1993, ch 33, §§ 53,373.”

State Ex Rel. Juv. Dep't v. Cowens, 922 P.2d 1258 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).

State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. v. Risland, 51 P.3d 697 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).

State v. R. H., 239 P.3d 505 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).

In Re Zh, 239 P.3d 505 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.100(1)(e)(C) — 2 cases

Dept. of Human Servs. v. A. S. (Or. Ct. App. 2026).

In Re Ab, 226 P.3d 66 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.100(1)(e)(D) — 5 cases

State Ex Rel. Juv. Dep't v. Vanbuskirk, 122 P.3d 116 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

State ex rel. Juv. Dep't v. K. D., 209 P.3d 810 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).

In re G. V. L., 417 P.3d 517 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).

State v. STS, 238 P.3d 53 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).

State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. v. KD, 209 P.3d 810 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.100(1)(g) — 1 case

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.100(2) — 7 cases

Dep't of Human Servs. v. A. B., 350 P.3d 558 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). “476 and, in its place, enacted ORS 419B.100. Or Laws 1993, ch 33, §§ 53,373.”

Dep't of Human Servs. v. S. P., 275 P.3d 979 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “ORS 419B.100 governs the juvenile court’s subject matter jurisdiction in dependency cases.”

Dept. of Human Servs. v. F. Y. D., 457 P.3d 947 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).

GAC v. State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept., 182 P.3d 223 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).

In re G. V. L., 417 P.3d 517 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.100(6)(b) — 1 case

State Ex Rel. State Off. for Servs. to Child. & Families v. Lucas, 33 P.3d 1001 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.100(A) — 1 case

State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. v. Smith, 133 P.3d 924 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.100(c) — 1 case

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.100(e)(C) — 1 case

Adams v. Oregon State Child.'s Servs. Div., 886 P.2d 19 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.100(l)(a) — 1 case

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.100(l)(b) — 1 case

Dep't of Human Servs. v. N. M. S., 266 P.3d 107 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “However, the latter, that is, mother’s admission that there had been an unexplained (yet nonaccidental) physical injury to one of the children, was the specific “fact” that the court relied on to establish jurisdiction under the former.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.100(l)(c) — 87 cases

Dep't of Human Servs. v. A. F., 259 P.3d 957 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “The juvenile court took jurisdiction over father’s children, pursuant to ORS 419B.100(l)(c), on the ground that father’s possession of pornography, including child pornography, endangered the children’s welfare.”

Dep't of Human Servs. v. C. Z., 236 P.3d 791 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “090 reflects the legislature’s policy decision concerning juvenile dependency, ORS 419B.100 implements those policies and, in the context of the present case, requires a showing that there exist conditions or circumstances that ‘endanger the welfare’ of the children.”

Dep't of Human Servs. v. M. E., 297 P.3d 17 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).

Dep't of Human Servs. v. A. L., 342 P.3d 174 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.100(l)(d) — 4 cases

Dep't of Human Servs. v. L. C., 343 P.3d 645 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).

State Ex Rel State Off. for Servs. to Child. & Families v. Williams, 7 P.3d 655 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).

Adams v. Oregon State Child.'s Servs. Div., 886 P.2d 19 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).

State ex rel. Juv. Dep't v. J. W., 193 P.3d 20 (Or. 2008).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.100(l)(e) — 4 cases

State Ex Rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Kamps, 74 P.3d 1123 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).

Dep't of Human Servs. v. C. M. M., 279 P.3d 306 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).

State ex rel. Juv. Dep't v. Risland, 51 P.3d 697 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).

State Ex Rel. Juv. Dep't v. Paull, 878 P.2d 1135 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.100(l)(e)(C) — 2 cases

State ex rel. Juv. Dep't v. L.B. & N. A. M., 226 P.3d 66 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.100(l)(e)(D) — 3 cases

State v. S. T. S., 238 P.3d 53 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).

Dep't of Human Servs. v. B. L. J., 268 P.3d 696 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).

Dep't of Human Servs. v. A. F., 341 P.3d 858 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).

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.