- Latest News!
- search california death records 1986?
- summit county ohio sex offender list.
- sex offenders in se albuquerqu nm!
She retired at the end of and is happily spending more time with her partner, her son, and her puppy. In her role as a Program Specialist with Multnomah County Department of Community Justice Crime Victim Services Unit, she coordinates with providers and law enforcement to enhance and expand services to survivors of sex-trafficking, and offers trainings and consultation on best practices.
IN RE: D. J.
Previously, Ms. Teri graduated from Portland State University with an Accounting Degree in , and received her license to practice as a Certified Public Accountant in Teri worked in public accounting for nine years before leaving her partnership to work in the non profit sector, specifically she was very interested in youth and work in the domestic and sexual violence field.
Teri served in the community for nine years on the Executive Committee for the Multnomah County Family Violence Coordinating Council, and was chair from In , Teri received the Judge Stephen B. She also worked on domestic violence and family law legislative and state-wide policy issues. From until May , Ms. Alcohol and Drug Treatment Community Corrections partners with local providers to provide these services on site at the Community Corrections Center. Offender accountability and victim safety are two of the primary goals of the program.
Similar to domestic violence offenders, the treatment module requires the Probation officer, Polygraph Examiner and Sex Offender Therapist to work closely with one another to ensure offender accountability and victim safety. Victim services include, providing updates to victims of the offender status, referring victims for services as needed, and being the conduit between the assigned Parole and Probation Officer and the crime victim.
The VFJC also meets with offenders who are on supervision to identify any barriers for them or their children. Shortly before she was born, mother and father decided to leave Oregon, at least in part to prevent DHS from taking custody of V. Father testified that he intended to go to New Orleans to seek construction work and did not intend to return. Mother echoed that testimony, stating that she and father intended to "look for work and for a place to stay" in New Orleans and to "get our life going, basically.
They packed all of their belongings into the car and went to a motel in Grants Pass, where mother gave birth with the assistance of father, who had experience as an emergency medical technician, had been trained in childbirthing by a midwife, and had delivered his first child. The family left the motel the next morning and drove to California.
Somewhere in Humboldt County, the car broke down and parents called The California Highway Patrol directed an ambulance to the scene, and parents and V were taken to a nearby hospital. Mother told the ambulance personnel that she had given birth to V in the car on the side of the road in Oregon.
At the hospital, V was examined and given a clean bill of health. The hospital's registration clerk asked parents for their address, and they gave an address in Grants Pass. DHS was alerted that mother had given birth and that parents and V were at the hospital in California. The next day, the juvenile court in Josephine County issued a protective custody order. Mother and father returned within the next few days, set up camp in the same place they had just left, and resumed their visits with A at the DHS office. DHS filed a jurisdictional petition on June 10, An amended petition alleged that V's conditions and circumstances endangered her welfare for the following reasons:.
For the first two months, parents' hostility toward DHS was manifest and appeared to affect V. The DHS worker who supervised their visits, Pollard, approached them and asked if they could set aside their feelings about DHS during the visits and focus on V's needs. According to Pollard, parents "started doing that from that point on and visits started going really well for [V] and her parents.
They've made some changes in their parenting and lately it's been all positive. You can just see that they really want to parent their child. They appear to love one another. The juvenile court held a jurisdictional hearing over several days in November and April and May Among the witnesses were three psychologists. The first to testify was Robinson, who specializes in sex-offender treatment and was hired by DHS to assess the risk that father will commit sex offenses against his children. Robinson did not interview father, but conducted a StaticR actuarial risk assessment, which is conducted solely using "archive data" from historical records.
According to Robinson, the StaticR is "the best tool that we have in this field" for determining the risk that a sex offender will reoffend. He reviewed juvenile records, investigative reports, adult probation and parole records, and other records related to father's criminal history. Based on the StaticR assessment, Robinson concluded that father was a "low moderate" risk for reoffending.
He stated that the risk actually increases with time until the offender reaches age The second psychologist to testify was Gordon, whom father had hired to conduct a "psychosexual risk evaluation. He also interviewed father and conducted a number of psychological tests, as well as a StaticR assessment.
Gordon diagnosed father with a personality disorder with histrionic, paranoid, and antisocial features.
Using the StaticR, Gordon placed father in the "low, to low moderate range for risk" of reoffending. However, Gordon opined that, with respect to father's own children, the risk is low and sex-offender treatment is not necessary for their safety. He explained that bonding and attachment are relevant to the risk and that "people have very different levels of bonding and attachment to their own children than they do to even siblings or other relatives.
The third psychologist was Jensen, a certified clinical therapist hired by DHS to review Gordon's evaluation. Jensen reviewed extensive records related to father's history as well as Gordon's report. Jensen took issue with Gordon's conclusions in part because Gordon had not performed a plethysmograph, which measures male arousal in response to visual and auditory materials depicting children and adults in various "normal" and "deviant" sexual "themes.
Like Robinson and Gordon, Jensen also conducted a StaticR assessment, but he scored father in the "moderate to high area. He acknowledged that "there's no question that the longer the period of time that goes by with no offenses the better. Sexual deviance is managed. It is treated. It is maintained under control. But it doesn't really go away. There's an extremely high risk of untreated sex offenders reoffending, if they place themselves in situations to have access to young children of the age they're attracted to.
Jensen also disputed Gordon's conclusion that father is significantly less likely to offend against his own children. He acknowledged that being related to a child is "an inhibitor" for most people but stated that, for "sex offenders who have already broken boundaries, and broken severe boundaries, it's not a big step.
They're not going to go outside the home where someone's likely to report them if they have someone available inside the home," adding, "Having children in the home is the biggest risk there can possibly be for a person that molests children. Mother and father also both testified at the hearing. On cross-examination, mother was asked about statements she had made in proceedings related to A concerning mother's priorities as between A and father:.
Several DHS caseworkers also testified at the hearing.
Hill-Hicks, who was assigned to work with parents regarding A, testified about parents' living arrangements. She stated that, starting in June , parents had a home "off Rogue River Highway" in the Grants Pass area, camped in different parks, lived in a home on Amelia Drive in Grants Pass, "and then camping after that. She replied:.
On cross-examination, Hill-Hicks was asked whether camping in the same spot for roughly a year would constitute "fairly stable housing. Hill-Hicks agreed that camping is not inherently unsafe and that having multiple residences and being unemployed are not by themselves reasons for DHS to remove children from their parents' care.
She later explained that DHS made the "chaotic lifestyle" finding based on the combination of multiple residences and unemployment "in addition to the history of residency throughout prior cases and prior involvement with the family. With the [case involving J], and [mother's] whereabouts were unknown for extended periods of time, as were her activities. And all of those pieces combined, lead to the chaotic lifestyle. At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court made oral findings and conclusions.
The court found that parents' testimony regarding changing their state of residence was not credible. In July , the court held a dispositional hearing, at which DHS asked to be relieved of its duty to make efforts to reunify V with mother and father, based on parents' past failure to engage in services and their attempt to leave Oregon without regard for the risk that it would create for V or the effect that it would have on A. The court denied that request and ordered DHS to provide services to parents.
It entered a dispositional judgment placing V in the legal and physical custody of DHS. Mother and father appeal both judgments. In her first assignment of error, mother asserts that the trial court erred in determining that it had personal jurisdiction over child and subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act UCCJEA.
With respect to personal jurisdiction, mother contends that jurisdiction is not proper when a child was taken into custody in another state. In support of her contention that the juvenile court lacked personal jurisdiction over child, mother cites State ex rel. Kennedy, 66 Or. In that case, California authorities took the child into custody at the request of Oregon's Children's Services Division, which had obtained a warrant for the child's custody. The child, who was born in Oregon but had lived in California with his parents for nearly two years, was brought to Oregon.
We concluded that statutes governing temporary custody of children implied that personal jurisdiction over the child turned on whether he was present in Oregon when he was taken into custody. Relying on Kennedy, mother asserts that, in this case, because "child was not living in Oregon at the time she was taken into custody, there was no personal jurisdiction.
Oregon Health Authority : Sex Offender Treatment Board : Health Licensing Office : State of Oregon
In , the legislature enacted ORS B. Emphasis added. That statute confers personal jurisdiction over a child under age 12 who is the subject of a petition filed under ORS B. In all events, as noted, ORS B.