The Oregon Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court's decision that dismissed a negligence claim involving a minor child, S.E., against the Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS) and one of its employees, Travis Manson. The case centers on allegations that S.E. was improperly placed with her father, who later sexually abused her. This decision could have significant implications for child welfare cases and the rights of minors in similar situations.
The court ruled on October 14, 2026, in case number A186113, stating that the lower court had erred in applying issue preclusion, which would prevent S.E. from pursuing her claims based on a previous juvenile court ruling. The court emphasized the importance of fairness, particularly regarding S.E.'s right to a jury trial.
This case began when S.E.'s mother was hospitalized in November 2020, and ODHS, through Manson, contacted her father to take custody of the child. After a short time living with him, S.E. disclosed to her mother and a neighbor that her father had hurt her. In May 2021, S.E. participated in a video interview at the Guardian Care Center, where she described inappropriate touching by her father.
Following her mother's death in September 2021, ODHS took custody of S.E. and filed a dependency petition, alleging sexual abuse by her father. However, the juvenile court found that ODHS had not presented credible evidence of abuse, leading to the dismissal of the dependency petition and the return of S.E. to her father's care.
In response, S.E., through her guardian ad litem Paul Galm, filed a lawsuit against ODHS and Manson, claiming negligence and abuse of a vulnerable person. The defendants sought summary judgment, arguing that the juvenile court's findings precluded S.E. from pursuing her claims. The trial court granted this motion, leading to S.E.'s appeal.
The Court of Appeals, led by Presiding Judge Ortega, determined that the trial court had incorrectly applied issue preclusion. The court stated, "Under the particular circumstances of this case, particularly given that plaintiff did not effectively waive any jury trial right when she was involuntarily made a party in the dependency proceeding, we conclude that issue preclusion should not apply in this case as a matter of fairness."
The ruling noted that applying issue preclusion could violate S.E.'s right to a jury trial, as her claims for negligence and abuse of a vulnerable person were tort claims that traditionally require a jury. The court emphasized that S.E. had no choice in participating in the dependency proceeding and had no burden of proof in that case.
Furthermore, the court pointed out that the juvenile court's findings were based on a misunderstanding of the law regarding what constitutes sexual abuse. The court highlighted that the juvenile court had not made a definitive finding that S.E. had not been abused but rather that ODHS had not met its burden of proof.
The impact of this ruling could be significant for child welfare cases in Oregon. It reinforces the rights of minors in dependency cases and emphasizes the importance of fair legal representation. This decision may encourage other victims of abuse to pursue claims against state agencies and their employees.
Moving forward, the case will return to the lower court for further proceedings, allowing S.E. to present her claims against ODHS and Manson. The court's decision opens the door for a jury to hear the evidence regarding the alleged abuse and the actions of the defendants.
It remains unclear whether the defendants will seek further appeal following this ruling. However, the case highlights ongoing concerns about the treatment of vulnerable children within the legal system and the responsibilities of state agencies in protecting them.