ORS 419B.150
When protective custody authorized; protective custody order


(1)

As used in this section:

(a)

“Abuse” has the meaning given that term in ORS 419B.005 (Definitions).

(b)

“Reasonable cause” means a subjectively and objectively reasonable belief, given all of the circumstances and based on specific and articulable facts.

(c)

“Severe harm” means:

(A)

Life-threatening damage; or

(B)

Significant or acute injury to a person’s physical, sexual or psychological functioning.

(2)

The following persons are authorized to take a child into protective custody under this section:

(a)

A peace officer, as defined in ORS 420.905 (Definitions for ORS 420.905 to 420.915);

(b)

A counselor; or

(c)

An employee of the Department of Human Services.

(3)

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, a child may be taken into protective custody without a court order only when there is reasonable cause to believe that:

(A)

There is an imminent threat of severe harm to the child;

(B)

The child poses an imminent threat of severe harm to self or others; or

(C)

There is an imminent threat that the child’s parent or guardian will cause the child to be beyond the reach of the juvenile court before the court can order that the child be taken into protective custody under subsection (6) of this section.

(b)

If there is reason to know that the child is an Indian child, the child may be taken into protective custody without a court order only when it is necessary to prevent imminent physical damage or harm to the child.

(4)

A person authorized to take a child into protective custody shall apply for a protective custody order, as described in subsection (6) of this section, by submitting a declaration based on information and belief that sets forth with particularity:

(a)

Why protective custody is necessary and the least restrictive means available to:

(A)

Protect the child from abuse;

(B)

Prevent the child from inflicting harm on self or others;

(C)

Ensure that the child remains within the reach of the juvenile court to protect the child from abuse or to prevent the child from inflicting harm on self or others; or

(D)

If the department knows or has reason to know that the child is an Indian child, prevent imminent physical damage or harm to the child.

(b)

Why protective custody is in the best interests of the child.

(5)

(a) The applicant under subsection (4) of this section shall deliver the declaration described in subsection (4) of this section to the juvenile court.

(b)

At the applicant’s request, instead of the declaration described in subsection (4) of this section, the judge may take an oral statement under oath. If the applicant makes the oral statement to the judge out of court, the applicant shall record the oral statement and retain a copy of the recording. The recording constitutes a declaration for the purposes of subsection (4) of this section.

(6)

The juvenile court may order that a child be taken into protective custody if, after reviewing the declaration described in subsection (4) of this section, the court determines that:

(a)

Protective custody is necessary and the least restrictive means available to:

(A)

Protect the child from abuse;

(B)

Prevent the child from inflicting harm on self or others;

(C)

Ensure that the child remains within the reach of the juvenile court to protect the child from abuse or prevent the child from inflicting harm on self or others;

(D)

Ensure the safety of a child who has run away from home; or

(E)

If the department knows or has reason to know that the child is an Indian child, prevent imminent physical damage or harm to the child; and

(b)

Protective custody is in the best interests of the child.

(7)

When the court issues a protective custody order under subsection (6) of this section, the court may transmit the signed order to the applicant by a form of electronic communication approved by the court that delivers a complete printable image of the signed order. The court shall file the original order in the court record. [1993 c.33 §61; 1993 c.546 §27; 1997 c.873 §10; 1999 c.691 §1; amendments by 1999 c.691 §2 repealed by 2001 c.484 §1; 2001 c.622 §§46,47; 2001 c.686 §§1,2; 2019 c.382 §8; 2019 c.594 §3a]
§§ 419B.500 to 419B.524

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

Because officers relied on Department of Human Services protective-custody determination, made no independent decisions regarding protective-custody determination and merely assisted DHS in securing children, officers were entitled to qualified immunity for entering residence without warrant. Sjurset v. Button, 810 F3d 609 (9th Cir. 2015)

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)


Source
Last accessed
May. 15, 2020