Department of Human Services v. L. G.
This text of 280 P.3d 396 (Department of Human Services v. L. G.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In this dependency case, father appeals from a dis-positional judgment that, among other things, required him to submit to random drug testing. He contends that the juvenile court erred in ordering him to submit to random urinalysis because that requirement bears no rational relationship to the jurisdictional finding that brought the child within the court’s jurisdiction and is, therefore, improper pursuant to ORS 419B.343. See State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. G. L., 220 Or App 216, 223, 185 P3d 483, rev den, 345 Or 158 (2008) (“[T]he requirement of ORS 419B.343 that DHS ensure that its case planning bears a rational relationship to the jurisdictional findings must also be understood to require that the court’s specification of a particular type of service that DHS provides bears a rational relationship to the jurisdictional findings.”). The state concedes that the dispositional judgment imposes a condition that is not rationally related to the factual basis on which jurisdiction was found and that the case must, therefore, be reversed and remanded. We agree and accept the state’s concession.
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
280 P.3d 396, 250 Or. App. 290, 2012 WL 1964563, 2012 Ore. App. LEXIS 701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/department-of-human-services-v-l-g-orctapp-2012.