the juvenile department itself a duty to investigate or otherwise pursue allegations of child abuse, it did require team members, including county juvenile department representatives, to carry out investigations in accordance with protocols under ORS 418.747(2). ORS 418.747(4). That obligation, which included a duty of “immediate investigation,” arguably created a special relationship between the juvenile department, to whom the Union County allegations were referred, and the Union County victim. It did not, however, create a special relationship between the juvenile department and other persons, including the Malheur County victims, because there had been no allegation of child abuse regarding those victims. Cf. Blachly v Portland Police Dept., 135 Or App 109, 117, 898 P2d 784 (1995) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs also rely on ORS 419A.012(1) as a
recognizing the districts duty of care for the protection of school children in its schools holding that state agencys duty to investigate a child abuse report involving a day care center created a special relationship between the agency and children at the day care center including those who had not been specifically named as victims in the report because they were among a finite group of children at the facility who were identified as suspected victims of abuse holding care custody and control of children is a fundamental right holding that if a church itself operates a day care center a nursing home a private school or a diocesan school system the operations of the center home school or schools would not be subject to the requirements of the ada or this part holding that medical center was not required to be named in expert report addressing its residents conduct because plaintiffs alleged no directliability claims against it and noting that medical center was implicated in report and so waived all its objections when it failed to object to sufficiency of report within twentyone days after service