Dept. of Human Services v. C. M. D.

343 Or. App. 724

Opinion

724 October 1, 2025 No. 861

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

In the Matter of C. T., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. C. M. D., Appellant. Linn County Circuit Court 24JU06302; A187305

Rachel Kittson-MaQatish, Judge. Submitted August 8, 2025. Aron Perez-Selsky filed the brief for appellant. Inge D. Wells, Assistant Attorney General waived appearance for respondent. Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge. EGAN, J. Affirmed. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 343 Or App 724 (2025) 725

EGAN, J. Mother appeals a judgment dismissing juvenile court jurisdiction over her child. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to ORAP 5.90 and State v. Balfour, 311 Or 434, 814 P2d 1069 (1991). The brief does not contain a Section B. See ORAP 5.90(1)(b). We affirm.1 The Oregon Department of Human Services filed a petition alleging that mother’s child was within the juris- diction of the court. A little over a month later, mother admitted the allegation that her substance abuse disorder, if untreated, interfered with her ability to safely parent her child. A little more than a month after that, at the time set for a jurisdictional hearing, ODHS moved to dismiss the petition. Mother objected. At the hearing, an ODHS worker testified that the agency had determined that the child could be safely reunited with father, and there would be no need for fur- ther agency intervention. Although there was conflicting evidence about father’s seizure disorder, the juvenile court’s express and implicit credibility findings bind us on appeal. The juvenile court implicitly found that father’s condition and circumstances did not pose a current threat to the child. It dismissed the petition and ordered the child to be returned to father. Having reviewed the record, including the trial court file, the transcript of the hearings, and the Balfour brief, we have identified no arguably meritorious issues. Affirmed.

1 As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge panel.