State ex rel Juvenile Department v. Banks

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State ex rel Juvenile Department v. Banks

974 P.2d 792, 158 Or. App. 452, 1999 Ore. App. LEXIS 195

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 17, 1999

Docket9302-80456; CA A103036

StatusPublished

This text of 974 P.2d 792 (State ex rel Juvenile Department v. Banks) 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

State ex rel Juvenile Department v. Banks, 974 P.2d 792, 158 Or. App. 452, 1999 Ore. App. LEXIS 195 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

LANDAU, P. J.

In this proceeding for termination of parental rights, father failed to appear at a scheduled mandatory pretrial conference. Father was represented by counsel, and counsel was present at the hearing. The trial court held father in default and permitted the state to proceed with a prima facie case for termination. Father’s counsel objected as follows:

“I would raise the same objections that I have in other termination cases where there’s a parent that fails to appear regarding the ability of the State to proceed by prima facie and would — no further comments.”

The trial court proceeded with the prima facie hearing, at the conclusion of which it found that the state had proven its case by clear and convincing evidence and ordered termination of father’s parental rights. Several weeks later, father moved to set aside the termination. The trial court denied the motion. Father appeals.

On appeal, father assigns error to the trial court’s termination of parental rights without father being present at the hearing. Father raises a number of arguments, all to the effect that the trial court’s decision to proceed without father being present violated a number of statutory provisions as well as the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The state argues, among other things, that father’s arguments were not preserved. We agree with the state.

Father’s attorney interposed “the same objections that I have in other termination cases.” The record of this case, however, does not reflect what those objections were or whether the trial comí; understood what the objections were. Under the circumstances, we cannot regard father’s contentions on appeal as having been preserved. See J. Arlie Bryant, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Comm., 132 Or App 565, 568, 889 P2d 383, rev den 321 Or 47 (1995) (preservation is required to give the trial court an opportunity to prevent error and to give opposing parties an opportunity to respond at the factfinding level of adjudication).

Affirmed.

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

LANDAU, P. J.

In this proceeding for termination of parental rights, father failed to appear at a scheduled mandatory pretrial conference. Father was represented by counsel, and counsel was present at the hearing. The trial court held father in default and permitted the state to proceed with a prima facie case for termination. Father’s counsel objected as follows:

“I would raise the same objections that I have in other termination cases where there’s a parent that fails to appear regarding the ability of the State to proceed by prima facie and would — no further comments.”

The trial court proceeded with the prima facie hearing, at the conclusion of which it found that the state had proven its case by clear and convincing evidence and ordered termination of father’s parental rights. Several weeks later, father moved to set aside the termination. The trial court denied the motion. Father appeals.

On appeal, father assigns error to the trial court’s termination of parental rights without father being present at the hearing. Father raises a number of arguments, all to the effect that the trial court’s decision to proceed without father being present violated a number of statutory provisions as well as the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The state argues, among other things, that father’s arguments were not preserved. We agree with the state.

Father’s attorney interposed “the same objections that I have in other termination cases.” The record of this case, however, does not reflect what those objections were or whether the trial comí; understood what the objections were. Under the circumstances, we cannot regard father’s contentions on appeal as having been preserved. See J. Arlie Bryant, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Comm., 132 Or App 565, 568, 889 P2d 383, rev den 321 Or 47 (1995) (preservation is required to give the trial court an opportunity to prevent error and to give opposing parties an opportunity to respond at the factfinding level of adjudication).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

974 P.2d 792, 158 Or. App. 452, 1999 Ore. App. LEXIS 195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-juvenile-department-v-banks-orctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack