In the Matter of E. T. B., a Child.
A. J., Appellant. K. A. B. and Department of Human Services, Respondents,
and submitted on September 27, 2018.
County Circuit Court 11102J; Petition Number 11102J01;
Josephine H. Mooney, Judge.
W. Kelly argued the cause and fled the brief for appellant.
Shannon Flowers, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for
respondent K. A. B. Also on the brief was Shannon Storey,
Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, Offce of Public
F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor
General, and Inge D. Wells, Assistant Attorney General, fled
the brief for respondent Department of Human Services.
Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and James,
Or.App. 790] PER CURIAM.
appeals the judgment in which the juvenile court vacated the
guardianship and also determined that the jurisdictional
basis for the wardship had been ameliorated. Guardian assigns
error only to the decision to vacate the guardianship,
arguing that the court's findings about her performance
as guardian were unsupported by evidence, and that the
findings did not satisfy the requirements of ORS 419B.398.
the juvenile court took jurisdiction over child, he was later
placed in guardian's care and a guardianship was created
under ORS 419B.366. Recently, mother moved to vacate the
guardianship and terminate the wardship. Mother argued that
the jurisdictional basis for the wardship had ceased to
exist, and that the juvenile court should accordingly dismiss
the case. She also argued that, if the court did not agree,
it should alternatively vacate the guardianship due to
shortcomings that mother identified in guardian's
performance. Guardian opposed the motion. The court held a
hearing at which mother and guardian presented evidence.
the hearing, the parties and the court were cognizant of our
opinion in Dept. of Human Services v. J. C, 289
Or.App. 19, 407 P.3d 969 (2017), rev allowed, 362
Or. 389 (2018), which concerns the analytical framework for
deciding a motion to vacate a guardianship and terminate the
wardship. Using that framework, the juvenile court must
initially determine whether it continues to have jurisdiction
over the child, which in turn determines whether a
guardianship can continue. Id. at 23. "[A]
court is required to terminate wardship over a child if
'the bases for the juvenile court's
jurisdiction'" have ceased to exist. Id.
(quoting Dept. of Human Services v. T. L., 279 Or.App.
673, 678, 379 P.3d 741 (2016)). A guardianship established
under ORS 419B.366 "can continue only if the court
continues to have jurisdiction over the child."
Id. at 24.
juvenile court subsequently entered a judgment in which it
cited J. C. and noted that mother "had the
burden to show the jurisdictional basis had been ameliorated
[294 Or.App. 791] and she met that burden." It made
findings of fact concerning mother and determined that
"[t]he underlying jurisdictional basis has been
ameliorated." The court also vacated the guardianship
"due to the Guardian's failure to fulfill her duties
as guardian. And, because the underlying jurisdictional basis
has been ameliorated, the Court intends that this case will
be dismissed within 90 days of the date of this Order and
lower court's ruling rests on multiple grounds, the
failure of an appellant to challenge all of the grounds
requires affirmance. Roop v. Parker Northwest Paving
Co.,194 Or.App. 219, 236, 94 P.3d 885 (2004)
("[W]here [appellants] fail to challenge the alternative
basis of the trial court's ruling, we must affirm
it."); National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Starplex
Corp.,220 Or.App. 560, 579 n 5, 188 P.3d 332 (2008).
Because guardian has not challenged the separate
determination that the basis for the juvenile court's