Summary
This video explains the legal standards for asserting juvenile court jurisdiction, emphasizing that substance abuse alone is insufficient. Jurisdiction requires evidence of a present threat of serious loss or injury to the child, not just potential danger or exposure to intoxication effects. It highlights parents' liberty interests in familial association and due process rights, stating that fraudulent evidence or procedural violations deny these rights. The video discusses the burden of proof on DHS to establish a nexus between conduct and harm, and notes potential liability for state employees involved in unconstitutional seizures or withholding exculpatory information.
Key Insights
Substance abuse alone does not grant jurisdiction; evidence of harm is required.
Apparent substance abuse by a parent is not, in and of itself, sufficient to assert juvenile court jurisdiction, even if the child is aware of it. Jurisdictional judgments based on parents' methamphetamine or marijuana use have been reversed due to a lack of evidence of a current threat of serious loss or injury to the child.
Jurisdiction requires a direct threat of serious harm to the child.
Jurisdiction is warranted only if the child's condition or circumstances endanger her welfare, meaning they present a threat of serious loss or injury under ORS 419B.010(1)(c). The mere possibility of danger does not constitute an emergency or exigent circumstance justifying actions like forced entry or seizure of a child.
DHS must prove a clear link between conduct and risk of harm.
The Department of Human Services (DHS) bears the burden of establishing a nexus between allegedly risk-causing conduct or circumstances and a demonstrable risk of harm to the child, which must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. The risk of harm must be present at the time of the hearing, not merely speculative.
Parents have liberty interests in family association and privacy.
Absent extraordinary circumstances, parents possess a fundamental liberty interest in familial association and privacy that cannot be violated without adequate pre-deprivation procedures.
Fraudulent evidence or procedural denial violates due process.
Plaintiffs can be deprived of their right to procedural due process if the intentional use of fraudulent evidence or fundamentally unfair procedures is employed by the state, denying them the right to a fair process before their child is removed.
CPS and AAG collusion can lead to unlawful orders.
Collusion between Child Protective Services (CPS) and an Assistant Attorney General (AAG) can result in the judge issuing unlawful and unconstitutional orders.
Qualified immunity is denied to caseworkers withholding information.
A caseworker who intentionally or recklessly withholds potentially exculpatory information from an adjudicated delinquent or the court is not entitled to qualified immunity.
Officers can be held liable for unconstitutional seizures via false statements.
An officer who obtains a warrant through materially false statements, resulting in an unconstitutional seizure, may be held personally liable for his actions under Section 1983.
Evidence must show the time, degree, and duration of harm to the child.
DHS must present evidence detailing the time, degree, and duration of any alleged harm to the child to support its claims.
Sections
Jurisdictional Standards in Child Welfare
Substance abuse alone does not grant jurisdiction; evidence of harm is required.
Apparent substance abuse by a parent is not, in and of itself, sufficient to assert juvenile court jurisdiction, even if the child is aware of it. Jurisdictional judgments based on parents' methamphetamine or marijuana use have been reversed due to a lack of evidence of a current threat of serious loss or injury to the child.
Exposure to intoxication effects is not a basis for jurisdiction.
Evidence that a child has been exposed to a parent exhibiting the adverse effects of intoxication does not, by itself, establish a basis for juvenile court jurisdiction over the child.
Awareness of parental alcohol abuse does not create jurisdiction without proven danger.
Evidence of a father's serious alcohol abuse, even if known to the children, did not create jurisdiction because there was an absence of evidence of resulting danger to the children.
Jurisdiction requires a direct threat of serious harm to the child.
Jurisdiction is warranted only if the child's condition or circumstances endanger her welfare, meaning they present a threat of serious loss or injury under ORS 419B.010(1)(c). The mere possibility of danger does not constitute an emergency or exigent circumstance justifying actions like forced entry or seizure of a child.
DHS must prove a clear link between conduct and risk of harm.
The Department of Human Services (DHS) bears the burden of establishing a nexus between allegedly risk-causing conduct or circumstances and a demonstrable risk of harm to the child, which must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. The risk of harm must be present at the time of the hearing, not merely speculative.
Evidence must show the time, degree, and duration of harm to the child.
DHS must present evidence detailing the time, degree, and duration of any alleged harm to the child to support its claims.
Parental Rights and Due Process
Parents have liberty interests in family association and privacy.
Absent extraordinary circumstances, parents possess a fundamental liberty interest in familial association and privacy that cannot be violated without adequate pre-deprivation procedures.
Fraudulent evidence or procedural denial violates due process.
Plaintiffs can be deprived of their right to procedural due process if the intentional use of fraudulent evidence or fundamentally unfair procedures is employed by the state, denying them the right to a fair process before their child is removed.
CPS and AAG collusion can lead to unlawful orders.
Collusion between Child Protective Services (CPS) and an Assistant Attorney General (AAG) can result in the judge issuing unlawful and unconstitutional orders.
Qualified immunity is denied to caseworkers withholding information.
A caseworker who intentionally or recklessly withholds potentially exculpatory information from an adjudicated delinquent or the court is not entitled to qualified immunity.
Liability for Unconstitutional Seizures
Officers can be held liable for unconstitutional seizures via false statements.
An officer who obtains a warrant through materially false statements, resulting in an unconstitutional seizure, may be held personally liable for his actions under Section 1983.
Ask a Question
*Uses 1 Wisdom coin from your coin balance
