Dept. of Human Services v. J. S. A.

Opinion

154 July 1, 2026 No. 612

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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

a Child.

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent,

v. J. S. A., Appellant.

Multnomah County Circuit Court 24JU02507;

Petition Number 115054;

A189727 (Control) In the Matter of A. L.,

a Child.

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent,

v. J. S. A., Appellant.

Multnomah County Circuit Court 24JU02508;

Petition Number 115054;

A189728

Jacqueline L. Alarcón, Judge. Submitted May 8, 2026. George W. Kelly filed the brief for appellant. Section B of the brief was prepared by appellant.

Stacy M. Chaffin, Assistant Attorney General, waived appearance for respondent.

Nonprecedential Memo Op: 351 Or App 154 (2026) 155

Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.* EGAN, J. Affirmed.

______________

* Determined by a two-judge department as authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b).

156 Dept. of Human Services v. J. S. A.

EGAN, J. Mother appeals a jurisdictional judgment taking juvenile court jurisdiction over two of her children. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to ORAP 5.90 and State v. Balfour, 311 Or 434, 814 P2d 1069 (1991). The brief contains a Section B. See ORAP 5.90(1)(b). We affirm.

In Section B of the brief, mother requests reconsideration of the jurisdictional decision, noting that she is committed to doing what is needed to provide her children with stability and a permanent foundation. She expresses that she is concerned for their emotional wellbeing and long-term development, and requests “the opportunity to care for [her] children together in a unified home.”

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. We note that mother’s request for reconsideration does not create an arguably meritorious issue for review because it does not identify an error in the juvenile court’s decision; a request for reconsideration is properly directed to the juvenile court that made the decision in the first instance, rather than to the court reviewing the decision.

Affirmed.