2017 ORS 419B.100¹
Jurisdiction
  • bases
  • Indian children

(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (5) of this section and ORS 107.726 (Standing to petition for relief of person under 18 years of age), 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;

(c) Whose condition or circumstances are 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;

(C) Subjected the person to cruelty, depravity or unexplained physical injury; or

(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 has run away from the home of the person;

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

(h) Who is subject to an order entered under ORS 419C.411 (Disposition order) (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 (Definitions for ORS 419B.550 to 419B.558) to 419B.558 (Entry of judgment of emancipation).

(5)(a) An Indian tribe has exclusive jurisdiction over any child custody proceeding involving an Indian child who resides or is domiciled within the reservation of the tribe, except where the jurisdiction is otherwise vested in the state by existing federal law.

(b) Upon the petition of either parent, the Indian custodian or the Indian child’s tribe, the juvenile court, absent good cause to the contrary and absent objection by either parent, shall transfer a proceeding for the foster care placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child not domiciled or residing within the reservation of the Indian child’s tribe, to the jurisdiction of the tribe.

(c) The juvenile court shall give full faith and credit to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of an Indian tribe applicable to an Indian child custody proceeding to the same extent that the juvenile court gives full faith and credit to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of any other entity. [1993 c.33 §53; 1993 c.546 §10; 1993 c.643 §5; 2005 c.843 §31; 2011 c.291 §5; 2013 c.1 §61]

Notes of Decisions

Under Former Similar Statutes

Due process does not require the appoint­ment of “independent counsel” to represent the child in every adop­tion or termina­tion of parental rights pro­ceed­ing. F. v. C., 24 Or App 601, 547 P2d 175 (1976)

When sec­ond termina­tion of parental rights pro­ceed­ing was not itself barred, proof was not limited by res judicata or collateral estoppel principles to facts or evidence which was not considered in or which came in to being after first pro­ceed­ing. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Newman, 49 Or App 221, 619 P2d 901 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

Notes of Decisions

Under Former Similar Statute

Juvenile court may exercise jurisdic­tion over children notwithstanding determina­tion of their custody by a prior divorce decree so long as statutory prerequisites for such jurisdic­tion are met. State ex rel Juvenile Dept., Clackamas County v. Christy, 7 Or App 608, 492 P2d 476 (1972)

Ac­tion of babysitters in administering unduly severe physical punish­ment to children was not sufficiently attributable to mother so as to authorize court to assume jurisdic­tion and make children wards of juvenile court. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Guier, 12 Or App 293, 506 P2d 724 (1973)

The finding that a juvenile is “out of control of his parents” is sufficient to create juvenile court jurisdic­tion to commit the juvenile to a mental health facility. Parker v. Talkington, 17 Or App 147, 521 P2d 25 (1974)

The juvenile court was empowered to render an alternative order requiring the Children’s Services Division to secure treat­ment for the child or to certify to the court that it was without funding to do so. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. of Multnomah County v. L., 24 Or App 257, 546 P2d 153 (1976)

Evidence that 12-year-old boy was found hitchhiking in mid-September, lacking socks or jacket and with clothes in filthy condi­tion, was sufficient to give juvenile court jurisdic­tion. State ex rel Juvenile Depart­ment v. Currie, 31 Or App 727, 571 P2d 190 (1977)

Whether condi­tions and circumstances are attributable to mother or father is not relevant for jurisdic­tional purposes. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Jordan, 36 Or App 817, 585 P2d 753 (1978)

Existence of legal guardianship over child while mother, who retained custody, was in jail was not sufficient to defeat jurisdic­tion. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Moyer, 42 Or App 655, 601 P2d 821 (1979), Sup Ct review denied

Where mother was incarcerated and therefore unavailable to care for child, she “failed to provide” for child, rendering jurisdic­tion proper. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Moyer, 42 Or App 655, 601 P2d 821 (1979), Sup Ct review denied

Peti­tion Alleging That

daughter stated father had had sexual intercourse with her; that daughter stated she was afraid further contact with father would result in his es­tab­lishing regular sexual rela­tionship with her; and that mother stated that father had sexual contact with daughter and she had failed to protect daughter was not sufficient to bring daughter within jurisdic­tion of juvenile court. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Boyce, 47 Or App 759, 615 P2d 385 (1980)

Where child’s life was endangered, juvenile court properly assumed jurisdic­tion and di­rected performance of surgery over parents’ conten­tion that surgery would violate their right to free exercise of religion. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Jensen, 54 Or App 1, 633 P2d 1302 (1981)

Juvenile court had jurisdic­tion over child even though peti­tion alleged only “claims” of sexual abuse rather than acts themselves, where court, after defendant’s objec­tions to pleadings, informed defendants that proof of claimed acts would be re­quired and defendants did not object on grounds of variance or lack of notice. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Rise, 54 Or App 725, 635 P2d 1369 (1981)

Where appellant was under 18 and had not otherwise complied with the statutory emancipa­tion pro­ce­dures, juvenile court did not lack jurisdic­tion over her solely because she was married. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Williams, 55 Or App 951, 640 P2d 675 (1982)

Shelter care center to which child was legally assigned was her “home” for purposes of exercising jurisdic­tion over child as runaway. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Williams, 55 Or App 951, 640 P2d 675 (1982)

Where mother stipulated in court that stepfather had sexually abused child, peti­tion alleging stepfather was still residing at same address as mother and child was sufficient to bring child within court’s jurisdic­tion and to allow state to at­tempt to show stepfather as continuing threat to child. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Carver, 71 Or App 107, 691 P2d 107 (1984)

Where father had prior history of sexually abusing his children and, since original pro­ceed­ing, addi­tional evidence existed that abuse continued and mother refused to acknowledge possibility of abuse, trial court erred in returning children to parents and in not providing protective services. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Gates, 96 Or App 365, 774 P2d 484 (1989), Sup Ct review denied

Allega­tions in peti­tion to make child ward of court that mother used drugs and that child’s sibling was born with controlled substances in her system, in absence of factual allega­tions showing how drug usage endangers welfare of child, were insufficient to es­tab­lish jurisdic­tion over child. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Randall, 96 Or App 673, 773 P2d 1348 (1989)

State proved circumstances that endanger child’s welfare where evidence es­tab­lished mother did not take child to doctor and mother continued to accept boyfriend’s explana­tion that injuries were self-inflicted. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Nelson, 116 Or App 611, 842 P2d 447 (1992)

Where state es­tab­lished that child was abused while mother and boyfriend lived together and when mother and boyfriend continued to live together, state proved by preponderance of evidence that welfare of child was endangered. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Froats, 117 Or App 467, 844 P2d 917 (1992)

Condi­tions or circumstances are sufficient to endanger welfare of child where, under totality of circumstances, court finds reasonable likelihood child will be harmed directly or subjected to harmful environ­ment. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Smith, 316 Or 646, 853 P2d 282 (1993); State ex rel Juv. Dept v. Brammer, 133 Or App 544, 892 P2d 720 (1995), Sup Ct review denied

In General

Place­ment decision by Children’s Services Division was reviewable by juvenile court to determine whether division failed to provide for child’s physical, mental or emo­­tion­al well-being. Adams v. CSD, 131 Or App 396, 886 P2d 19 (1994), Sup Ct review denied

Where state seeks to interfere with parent-child rela­tionship through termina­tion or dependency pro­ceed­ing, interests of child are adverse to state. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Cowens, 143 Or App 68, 922 P2d 1258 (1996), Sup Ct review denied

Juvenile court may order agency to provide adoptive home studies to attorney of dependent child prior to agency issuance of place­ment report. State ex rel State Office for Services to Children and Families v. Williams, 168 Or App 538, 7 P3d 655 (2000)

Where jurisdic­tion over one child in household is based on failure to respond to special needs of child, risk of harm to child does not automatically provide basis for exercising jurisdic­tion over other children not having special needs. State ex rel Depart­ment of Human Services v. Shugas, 202 Or App 302, 121 P3d 702 (2005)

State is not re­quired to meet individualized burden of proof with respect to each parent in order to es­tab­lish that totality of circumstances re­gard­ing welfare of child supports dependency finding. State ex rel Juvenile Depart­ment v. T.S., 214 Or App 184, 164 P3d 308 (2007), Sup Ct review denied

Existence of physical abuse exceeding ordinary discip­line is circumstance that endangers welfare of child. G.A.C. v. State ex rel Juvenile Depart­ment, 219 Or App 1, 182 P3d 223 (2008)

Exclusion of improperly obtained evidence against parent is not available in juvenile dependency hearing. State ex rel Depart­ment of Human Services v. W.P., 345 Or 657, 202 P3d 167 (2009)

Where findings of allega­tions pertaining to mother and father are partially interdependent, either parent may challenge all jurisdic­tional findings on ap­peal, even those findings pertaining to other parent. Depart­ment of Human Services v. S.P., 249 Or App 76, 275 P3d 979 (2012)

Where juvenile court’s jurisdic­tion is based solely on parent’s substance abuse, evidence in record that shows parent is not credible is legally insufficient to show parent had substance abuse problem at time of jurisdic­tional hearing demonstrating that, under totality of circumstances there was current risk of harm to welfare of child. Depart­ment of Human Services v. E.M., 264 Or App 76, 331 P3d 1054 (2014)

Where peti­tioner was under 18 years of age at time of adjudica­tion of jurisdic­tional allega­tions in jurisdic­tional judg­ment, juvenile court did not lose authority to continue to exercise jurisdic­tion when peti­tioner turned 18 years of age because juvenile court’s exclusive original jurisdic­tion over dependency case involving per­son who is under 18 years of age attaches at initia­tion of pro­ceed­ings and is not thereafter lost merely because child turns 18 years old before wardship is es­tab­lished. State v. L.P.L.O., 280 Or App 292, 381 P3d 846 (2016)

Law Review Cita­tions

Under Former Similar Statute

12 WLJ 557 (1976)

Chapter 419B

Notes of Decisions

Due process rights of parents are al­ways implicated in construc­tion and applica­tion of pro­vi­sions of this chapter. Depart­ment of Human Services v. J.R.F., 351 Or 570, 273 P3d 87 (2012)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 419B—Juvenile Code: Dependency, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors419B.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 419B, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano419B.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.