Department of Human Services v. C.A.M.

“The ‘key inquiry in determining whether condition[s] or circumstances warrant jurisdiction is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, there is a reasonable likelihood of harm to the welfare of the child.’ Dept. of Human Services v. C. Z., 236 Or App 436, 440, 236 P3d 791 (2010).”

Mother appealed the trial court’s ruling that M.S.M, a child, was within the jurisdiction of the Department of Human Services. Mother assigned error to the finding that there was evidence that she “knew or should have known” about the risks that Father posed to her children. On appeal, Mother argued that there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court’s finding. In response, the Department argued that the trial court’s judgment should be affirmed. “The key inquiry in determining whether condition[s] or circumstances warrant jurisdiction is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, there is a reasonable likelihood of harm to the welfare of the child." Dept. of Human Services v. C. Z., 236 Or App 436, 440, 236 P3d 791 (2010). The Court held that granting jurisdiction to the Department was in the best interest of the child. Affirmed.