Dept. of Human Services v. D. L. H.

313 Or. App. 624

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: July 28, 2021
• Docket: A174966
• Status: Published

Opinion

Submitted June 29, affirmed July 28, petition for review denied November 4, 2021 (368 Or 702)

In the Matter of G. L. T., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. D. L. H., Appellant. Jackson County Circuit Court 20JU04703; A174966 (Control) In the Matter of R. J. T., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. D. L. H., Appellant. Jackson County Circuit Court 20JU04704; A174967 In the Matter of J. C. T., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. D. L. H., Appellant. Jackson County Circuit Court 20JU04705; A174962 In the Matter of E. J. T., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Cite as 313 Or App 624 (2021) 625

D. L. H., Appellant. Jackson County Circuit Court 20JU04706; A174965 491 P3d 833

Benjamin M. Bloom, Judge. Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Holly Telerant, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Carson L. Whitehead, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and Kamins, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. 626 Dept. of Human Services v. D. L. H.

PER CURIAM Mother appeals a dependency judgment taking jurisdiction over four of her children. On appeal, she chal- lenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the juve- nile court’s determination that it had jurisdiction over each child. Having reviewed the record, we disagree that there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s juris- diction determination. Mother also raises an unpreserved challenge to the court’s legal authority to order her to par- ticipate in a psychological evaluation. Even assuming the court erred, and plainly so, mother has since completed the psychological evaluation and has not explained on appeal how, under those circumstances, a ruling in her favor would afford her meaningful relief; we therefore would decline to exercise our discretion to correct the alleged error. Affirmed.