State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Verley

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Verley

717 P.2d 186, 78 Or. App. 503

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 9, 1986

Docket81,116; CA A35900

StatusPublished

This text of 717 P.2d 186 (State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Verley) 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. Verley, 717 P.2d 186, 78 Or. App. 503 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Mother appeals from an order terminating her parental rights. ORS 419.523, ORS 419.525. She first contends that the allegations of the petition are insufficient under ORS 419.523(2). We disagree. See State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Hayworth, 35 Or App 161, 164, 581 P2d 100, rev den 284 Or 235 (1978). Mother has not shown any prejudice as a result of the alleged insufficiency, and our examination of the record satisfies us that no prejudice resulted. Further, mother failed to raise the issue in the trial court. See Wells v. Washington County, 243 Or 246, 249-50, 412 P2d 798 (1966).

On de novo review, ORS 419.561(4), ORS 19.125(3), see State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Jones, 290 Or 799, 810, 626 P2d 882 (1981), we conclude that the allegations of the petition have been proven by clear and convincing evidence. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Farrell, 58 Or App 258, 648 P2d 401, rev den 293 Or 521 (1982); ORS 419.525(2).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Mother appeals from an order terminating her parental rights. ORS 419.523, ORS 419.525. She first contends that the allegations of the petition are insufficient under ORS 419.523(2). We disagree. See State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Hayworth, 35 Or App 161, 164, 581 P2d 100, rev den 284 Or 235 (1978). Mother has not shown any prejudice as a result of the alleged insufficiency, and our examination of the record satisfies us that no prejudice resulted. Further, mother failed to raise the issue in the trial court. See Wells v. Washington County, 243 Or 246, 249-50, 412 P2d 798 (1966).

On de novo review, ORS 419.561(4), ORS 19.125(3), see State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Jones, 290 Or 799, 810, 626 P2d 882 (1981), we conclude that the allegations of the petition have been proven by clear and convincing evidence. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Farrell, 58 Or App 258, 648 P2d 401, rev den 293 Or 521 (1982); ORS 419.525(2).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

717 P.2d 186, 78 Or. App. 503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-juvenile-department-v-verley-orctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack