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

317 Or. App. 279

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: January 26, 2022
• Docket: A176365
• Status: Published

Opinion

Submitted December 28, 2021, affirmed January 26, 2022

In the Matter of J. A. E., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. C. M. M. and A. C. E., Appellants. Columbia County Circuit Court 20JU00245; A176365 (Control) In the Matter of J. M. E., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. C. M. M. and A. C. E., Appellants. Columbia County Circuit Court 20JU00246; A176366 In the Matter of J. R. E., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. C. M. M. and A. C. E., Appellants. Columbia County Circuit Court 20JU00247; A176367 502 P3d 266

Michael T. Clarke, Judge. George W. Kelly filed the brief for appellant A. C. E. 280 Dept. of Human Services v. C. M. M.

Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Holly Telerant, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant C. M. M. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Shannon T. Reel, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before James, Presiding Judge, and Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Kamins, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. Cite as 317 Or App 279 (2022) 281

PER CURIAM Parents appeal permanency judgments changing the permanency plans for their three children from reunifi- cation to adoption. They assign error to the juvenile court’s determination that the children’s permanency plans should be changed away from reunification, contending that the court erred in concluding that the children could not be returned to parents’ care within a reasonable period of time. In addition, with respect to their youngest child only, they contend that the juvenile court erred in determining that his permanency plan should be adoption and not guardian- ship. On the first point, having reviewed the record, we con- clude that the court did not err in determining that the per- manency plans should be changed away from reunification. On the second point, the juvenile court now has changed the permanency plan for parents’ youngest child to guardian- ship, so that issue has become moot and we do not reach it for that reason. Affirmed.