Supervision, nurturing, desertion, and psychological neglect off the abuse list
Two education unions just redrew the line on what Oregon school employees can be investigated for.
The Oregon Court of Appeals on September 23 invalidated four portions of an Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS) rule that defined "abuse" for school-based investigations. The agency, the court held, had stretched its definition well past what the legislature authorized.
It started in 2019. Oregon's legislature passed Senate Bill 155, creating a mandate for ODHS to investigate abuse reports involving school employees, contractors, agents, and volunteers. The law gave the agency authority to "adopt any rules necessary" for those investigations. What it did not give was permission to rewrite what counts as abuse.
ODHS did it anyway, the Oregon Education Association and the Oregon School Employees Association argued. The statute defines negligent treatment as "the failure to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter or medical care that is likely to endanger the health or welfare of the child." ODHS had tacked on supervision, protection, nurturing, desertion, and psychological neglect.
The court sided with the unions. Food, clothing, shelter, medical care - those are basic physical and medical needs. Supervision, nurturing, desertion, and psychological neglect are not in the same category. The statute's "including but not limited to" clause did not hand the agency a blank cheque to invent new types of neglect.
Legislative history sealed it. When lawmakers overhauled the abuse definition in 1985, they drew a deliberate line between "mental injury" - limited to cruel or unconscionable acts causing severe harm - and "negligent treatment," aimed at minimum basic needs. The agency's psychological neglect provision dropped the "cruel or unconscionable" requirement entirely, lowering the bar below what the legislature set.
Three other challenged provisions were declared moot after ODHS amended its rule mid-litigation to match the statute. The court saw no reason to revisit them, noting the agency had publicly acknowledged the changes were needed to stay within its authority.
The bottom line for school HR teams: the list of conduct that can trigger a formal abuse investigation against staff just got shorter. If it is not about food, clothing, shelter, or medical care - or something closely related - it does not fit the statutory definition. The agency cannot expand that list on its own, and districts relying on the old, broader rule will need to recalibrate.
