“It must be remembered that the word ‘jurisdiction’ as applied to this proceeding is not the kind of jurisdiction that gives the court the power to act at all. In the sense the word is used in [former ORS 419.476 (1991)], which specifies the causes which permit the court to make the child a ward of 34 Dept. of Human Services v. K. W. the court, a finding of jurisdiction is a factual determination that the child is dependent or delinquent. It is not the kind of jurisdictional question that can be raised at any stage of the proceedings.”
How later courts described this case
- “It must be remembered that the word ‘jurisdiction’ as applied to this proceeding is not the kind of jurisdiction that gives the court the power to act at all. In the sense the word is used in [former ORS 419.476 (1991)], which specifies the causes which permit the court to make the child a ward of 34 Dept. of Human Services v. K. W. the court, a finding of jurisdiction is a factual determination that the child is dependent or delinquent. It is not the kind of jurisdictional question that can be raised at any stage of the proceedings.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Beasley, 106 Or. App. 515 (1991)
Chandler is also inapposite because it involved dependency rather than termination of parental rights.
The opinion
MoALLISTER., C. J.,
dissenting in part.
I dissent from that portion of the majority opinion which holds that the trial court did not err in refusing to allow the father to call his child as a witness and to examine her in open court. This flouts our holding in Kreutzer v. Kreutzer, 226 Or 158 , 359 P2d 536 , in which we held that in view of the express provisions of ORS 44.020 and 44.030, the trial court cannot refuse to permit minor children to testify if they are qualified under the statutes. It may be, as stated by the majority, that discretion should be vested in the trial court to determine whether a child should be permitted to testify in a given case, but if so such authority must come by a change in the statute. This court has no authority to amend the statute by judicial fiat.