Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Adoption of A. G. D.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

July 26, 2017

In the Matter of the Adoption of A. G. D., a Child.
v.
N. E. D. and P. S. D., Respondents. A. M., Appellant,

          Argued and submitted May 3, 2017

         Josephine County Circuit Court 16AP00437; Michael Newman, Judge.

          George W. Kelly argued the cause and fled the brief for appellant.

          Clayton C. Patrick argued the cause and fled the brief for respondents.

          Before Egan, Presiding Judge, and Lagesen, Judge, and Schuman, Senior Judge.

         Case Summary:

         Mother appeals a trial court order under ORS 109.324 determining that the adoption of her child, A, can proceed without mother's consent. Mother assigns error to the court's determination that she willfully neglected A and its ensuing conclusion that the adoption "shall proceed" without mother's consent. Mother also asserts that her court-appointed trial counsel rendered inadequate assistance of counsel by failing to present evidence favorable to mother.

         Held:

         Under ORS 19.205 and Gastineau v. Harris, 121 Or.App. 67, 853 P.2d 1338, rev den, 317 Or. 583 (1993), the order that mother appealed, an interlocutory order under ORS 109.324, was not appealable because it did not conclusively resolve the adoption proceeding or preclude the final resolution of the proceeding.

         Appeal dismissed.

         [287 Or.App. 37] LAGESEN, J.

         This case concerns a contested adoption proceeding under ORS 109.304 to 109.410 in which grandparents, the legal guardians of their six-year-old granddaughter, A, petitioned to adopt her. As father, petitioners' son, consented to the adoption, but As mother did not. As authorized by ORS 109.324 and ORS 109.330, petitioners moved the court for an order allowing the adoption to proceed without mother's consent on the ground that mother "willfully * * * neglected without just and sufficient cause to provide proper care and maintenance for [A] for one year next preceding the filing of the petition for adoption." ORS 109.324(1). After an evidentiary hearing, the court, upon determining that mother willfully neglected A during the pertinent one-year period, entered an order ruling that mother's consent is not required for adoption and that the adoption "shall proceed" notwithstanding any objection by mother.

         Mother appeals that order, assigning error to the court's determination that she willfully neglected A and its ensuing conclusion that the adoption shall proceed without mother's consent and over any of her objections. Mother also asserts that her court-appointed trial counsel[1] rendered inadequate assistance of counsel by failing to present evidence favorable to mother. Those arguments, however, are not ones that we can address at present, because the order mother has appealed is not appealable. We therefore must dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

         As an appellate court, we lack subject matter jurisdiction over an appeal from a judgment or order that is not appealable. State v. Nix.356 Or. 768, 773, 345 P.3d 416 (2015). We thus "have an independent duty to determine whether [an] appeal [is] statutorily authorized." Id. We must comport [287 Or.App. 38] with that "independent duty" even when the parties have not raised the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.