The Oregon Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court’s decision in a juvenile dependency case, solidifying Oregon’s jurisdiction over a child despite the child’s extended stay in El Salvador. The case, *Department of Human Services v. M. P.*, centers on the legal battles over the state’s ability to intervene in the child’s life, with the father challenging the juvenile court’s authority at multiple stages.
Background of the Case
The Department of Human Services (DHS) became involved with the family in February 2021 after the child, J. P., then eight years old, reported alleged sexual abuse by an older sibling. Shortly thereafter, the mother, along with J.P. and two other siblings, left Oregon for El Salvador in March 2021. They left behind belongings, including furniture and vehicles, and did not inform the landlord of their departure. The father remained in Oregon.
In April 2021, DHS filed a declaration seeking protective custody of J.P., and the juvenile court issued an order authorizing DHS to take the child into protective custody. Over the next year, the mother was seen in Oregon on two occasions.
In March 2022, the mother and children were detained in Florida after arriving from El Salvador, with their intended destination being Portland, Oregon. J.P. was returned to Oregon and placed in foster care. DHS then filed a petition alleging that J.P. was within the juvenile court’s dependency jurisdiction.
Initial Court Proceedings and Appeal (M.P. I)
The juvenile court held a trial in June 2022. The parents argued that the Oregon juvenile court lacked jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) because the child’s “home state” at the time the dependency petition was filed (March 2022) was El Salvador. The juvenile court denied the parents’ motions to dismiss, ruling that the proceeding commenced with the April 2021 filing of the protective custody declaration and that Oregon was the home state at that time.
Both parents appealed this decision. The Court of Appeals, in a prior decision known as *M. P. I*, determined that the dependency proceeding actually commenced with the March 2022 petition, not the protective custody declaration. The court concluded that, because Oregon was not the child’s home state at that time, Oregon did not have “home-state jurisdiction.” The case was then remanded to the juvenile court for it to determine whether there was any other basis for jurisdiction under the UCCJEA.
Proceedings on Remand and the Current Appeal
On remand, the central issue was whether the child’s absence from Oregon between April 2021 and March 2022, while in El Salvador, should be considered a “temporary absence” under the UCCJEA. If so, Oregon could still be considered the child’s home state, giving the court jurisdiction. The father argued that the Court of Appeals in *M. P. I* had already ruled that Oregon was not the home state, precluding the juvenile court from relitigating the issue.
The juvenile court concluded that the child’s time in El Salvador was a “temporary absence” and that Oregon remained the home state. The court also found that the mother fled to El Salvador to avoid DHS involvement. The juvenile court then re-entered the original judgment. The father appealed this decision.
Court of Appeals Decision
The Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s decision. The court addressed several key points:
Judgment Validity: The court rejected the father’s argument that the original judgment was void. The court clarified that the previous decision in *M. P. I* did not mean the juvenile court lacked all authority to act, but rather that it had made an error in determining jurisdiction.
Law of the Case: The court analyzed whether the *M. P. I* decision had already determined that Oregon was not the home state, thereby precluding the juvenile court from reconsidering the issue. The court found that the statement in *M. P. I* regarding home state jurisdiction was *dictum*, meaning it was not essential to the court’s ruling and therefore not binding on the lower court under the “law of the case” doctrine.
Temporary Absence: The court upheld the juvenile court’s finding that the child’s time in El Salvador was a “temporary absence.” The court applied the “totality of the circumstances” test, considering factors such as the family’s actions, the hasty departure, and the mother’s return visits to Oregon. The court found that the juvenile court did not err in concluding that Oregon remained the child’s home state.
Need for Relitigation: Because the court found that the juvenile court had jurisdiction, it did not address the father’s arguments regarding the need to re-evaluate the dependency petition.
Significance of the Ruling
This case underscores the complexities of child custody and dependency cases when interstate or international travel is involved. The UCCJEA provides a framework for determining which state has jurisdiction, prioritizing the child’s home state. The court’s decision highlights the importance of the “temporary absence” provision in the UCCJEA and the factors courts consider when making such determinations. The ruling also clarifies the scope of the “law of the case” doctrine and when a prior court statement is considered *dictum* and not binding. The case also highlights how a parent’s actions, such as leaving the state to avoid DHS involvement, can be considered in determining a child’s home state.