Dept. of Human Services v. S. D.

505 P.3d 505, 318 Or. App. 416

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: March 16, 2022
• Docket: A176546
• Status: Published

Opinion

Submitted January 26; jurisdictional judgment affirmed, dispositional judgment reversed in part and remanded, otherwise affirmed March 16, 2022

In the Matter of O. S., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. S. D., Appellant. Deschutes County Circuit Court 20JU06897; A176546 505 P3d 505

Alison M. Emerson, Judge. Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Joel C. Duran, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Shannon T. Reel, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and Powers, Judge. PER CURIAM Jurisdictional judgment affirmed; dispositional judgment reversed in part and remanded; otherwise affirmed. Cite as 318 Or App 416 (2022) 417

PER CURIAM Mother appeals the judgment finding her child, O. S., to be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and impos- ing disposition. In mother’s sixth assignment of error,1 she argues that the juvenile court erred in ordering her to com- plete a drug and alcohol evaluation and any recommended treatment. According to mother, given the juvenile court’s dismissal of the allegation that mother’s substance abuse interferes with her ability to safely parent the child, the juvenile court erred in finding that a substance abuse eval- uation and recommended treatment was “rationally related to the findings that bring O. S. into the court’s jurisdiction.” Dept. of Human Services v. W. C. T., 314 Or App 743, 776, 501 P3d 44 (2021); see id. (setting forth required findings a juve- nile court must make after an evidentiary hearing before it may order a parent to submit to a psychological evalu- ation). The state concedes the error, noting that, although “the court found that the evaluation was rationally related to mother’s testimony that she had an alcohol problem, the court had dismissed the allegation that mother’s substance abuse interferes with her ability to safely parent the child.” We agree with the parties that the trial court erred in that regard and accept the state’s concession. Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the dispositional judgment ordering mother to complete a drug and alcohol assessment and any recommended treatment and remand for entry of a judg- ment omitting the challenged order. Jurisdictional judgment affirmed; dispositional judg- ment reversed in part and remanded; otherwise affirmed.

1 We reject without written discussion mother’s remaining assignments of error, one through five, challenging the jurisdictional portion of the judgment.