Dept. of Human Services v. E. D.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Dept. of Human Services v. E. D.

500 P.3d 85, 315 Or. App. 822

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedNovember 24, 2021

DocketA175571

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 500 P.3d 85 (Dept. of Human Services v. E. D.) 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

Dept. of Human Services v. E. D., 500 P.3d 85, 315 Or. App. 822 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

Submitted September 3, reversed November 24, 2021

In the Matter of A. V. D., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. E. D., Appellant. Coos County Circuit Court 20JU06151; A175571 500 P3d 85

Megan Jacquot, Judge. Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Tiffany Keast, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense, Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Stacy M. Chaffin, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed. Cite as 315 Or App 822 (2021) 823

PER CURIAM Mother appeals a judgment establishing juvenile- court jurisdiction over 16-year-old A. In four assignments of error, mother argues that the evidence is legally insufficient to warrant the juvenile court’s jurisdiction, because the con- ditions and circumstances alleged by the Department of Human Services (DHS) do not expose A to a current, non- speculative risk of serious loss or injury. ORS 419B.100(1)(c). DHS concedes the error. We agree, accept the concession, and reverse the jurisdictional judgment. Reversed.

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

Submitted September 3, reversed November 24, 2021

In the Matter of A. V. D., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. E. D., Appellant. Coos County Circuit Court 20JU06151; A175571 500 P3d 85

Megan Jacquot, Judge. Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Tiffany Keast, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense, Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Stacy M. Chaffin, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed. Cite as 315 Or App 822 (2021) 823

PER CURIAM Mother appeals a judgment establishing juvenile- court jurisdiction over 16-year-old A. In four assignments of error, mother argues that the evidence is legally insufficient to warrant the juvenile court’s jurisdiction, because the con- ditions and circumstances alleged by the Department of Human Services (DHS) do not expose A to a current, non- speculative risk of serious loss or injury. ORS 419B.100(1)(c). DHS concedes the error. We agree, accept the concession, and reverse the jurisdictional judgment. Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

500 P.3d 85, 315 Or. App. 822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dept-of-human-services-v-e-d-orctapp-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack