Dept. of Human Services v. R. O.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Dept. of Human Services v. R. O.

497 P.3d 329, 315 Or. App. 487

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedOctober 27, 2021

DocketA175604

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 497 P.3d 329 (Dept. of Human Services v. R. O.) 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. R. O., 497 P.3d 329, 315 Or. App. 487 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

Submitted September 29, appeal dismissed October 27, 2021, petition for review dismissed April 7, 2022 (369 Or 508)

In the Matter of A. O., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. R. O. and K. O., Appellants. Marion County Circuit Court 20JU05820; A175604 497 P3d 329

Natasha A. Zimmerman, Judge pro tempore. Kristen G. Williams filed the brief for appellant R. O. Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Daniel J. Casey, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the briefs for appellant K. O. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jon Zunkel-deCoursey, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and Kamins, Judge. PER CURIAM Appeal dismissed. 488 Dept. of Human Services v. R. O.

PER CURIAM Mother and father appeal from a review judgment under ORS 419B.449. They assign error to the juvenile court’s determination in that judgment that the Department of Human Services (DHS) has made reasonable efforts to reunify the family. But, under the circumstances present here, the review judgment is not appealable. See Dept. of Human Services v. A. B. B., 285 Or App 409, 413, 396 P3d 306 (2017), rev dismissed, 362 Or 508 (2018) (citing Dept. of Human Services v. A. D. D. B., 278 Or App 503, 509, 511, 375 P3d 575, rev den, 360 Or 237 (2016), and adhering to previous understanding of the appealability of judgments iterated in State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Vockrodt, 147 Or App 4, 8, 934 P2d 620 (1997)). Contrary to mother’s argument, Dept. of Human Services v. J. R. D., 312 Or App 510, 493 P3d 567 (2021), did not overrule or abrogate our prior cases; J. R. D. involved a permanency judgment under ORS 419B.476, not a review judgment. We reject the contention that A. B. B. and our prior decisions were plainly wrong and decline to overrule them. Appeal dismissed.

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

Submitted September 29, appeal dismissed October 27, 2021, petition for review dismissed April 7, 2022 (369 Or 508)

In the Matter of A. O., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. R. O. and K. O., Appellants. Marion County Circuit Court 20JU05820; A175604 497 P3d 329

Natasha A. Zimmerman, Judge pro tempore. Kristen G. Williams filed the brief for appellant R. O. Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Daniel J. Casey, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the briefs for appellant K. O. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jon Zunkel-deCoursey, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and Kamins, Judge. PER CURIAM Appeal dismissed. 488 Dept. of Human Services v. R. O.

PER CURIAM Mother and father appeal from a review judgment under ORS 419B.449. They assign error to the juvenile court’s determination in that judgment that the Department of Human Services (DHS) has made reasonable efforts to reunify the family. But, under the circumstances present here, the review judgment is not appealable. See Dept. of Human Services v. A. B. B., 285 Or App 409, 413, 396 P3d 306 (2017), rev dismissed, 362 Or 508 (2018) (citing Dept. of Human Services v. A. D. D. B., 278 Or App 503, 509, 511, 375 P3d 575, rev den, 360 Or 237 (2016), and adhering to previous understanding of the appealability of judgments iterated in State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Vockrodt, 147 Or App 4, 8, 934 P2d 620 (1997)). Contrary to mother’s argument, Dept. of Human Services v. J. R. D., 312 Or App 510, 493 P3d 567 (2021), did not overrule or abrogate our prior cases; J. R. D. involved a permanency judgment under ORS 419B.476, not a review judgment. We reject the contention that A. B. B. and our prior decisions were plainly wrong and decline to overrule them. Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

497 P.3d 329, 315 Or. App. 487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dept-of-human-services-v-r-o-orctapp-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack