Department of Human Services v. T. J. D. J.

393 P.3d 1207, 285 Or. App. 503
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedMay 10, 2017
DocketJ140737; A163536 (Control); J140784; A163537; 15JU00035; A163538
StatusPublished

This text of 393 P.3d 1207 (Department of Human Services v. T. J. D. J.) 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.

Bluebook
Department of Human Services v. T. J. D. J., 393 P.3d 1207, 285 Or. App. 503 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Father appeals review judgments under ORS 419B.449 in juvenile dependency proceedings that are subject to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). He assigns error to the juvenile court’s determination in those judgments that DHS has made “active efforts” to return his child to the care of her family. See ORS 419B.340(1) (requiring juvenile court to assess whether DHS has made “active efforts” to permit a child to stay in, or return to, child’s home in certain orders in dependency cases subject to ICWA). In Dept. of Human Services v. A. B. B., 285 Or App 409, 396 P3d 306 (2017), decided today, we dismissed an appeal by child from the same judgments, concluding that, under State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Vockrodt, 147 Or App 4, 8, 934 P2d 620 (1997), child’s rights were not sufficiently affected by the judgments to render them appealable under ORS 419A.200(1). For substantially the same reasons as those we articulated in A. B. B., we conclude that the judgments are not appealable by father.

Appeal dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Vockrodt
934 P.2d 620 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1997)
Department of Human Services v. A. B. B.
396 P.3d 306 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
393 P.3d 1207, 285 Or. App. 503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/department-of-human-services-v-t-j-d-j-orctapp-2017.