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 K. R. M.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

September 11, 2019

In the Matter of K. R. M., a Child.
v.
A. M. B., Appellant. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, and K. R. M., Respondent,

          Argued and submitted November 28, 2018

          Lane County Circuit Court 17JU08181, Josephine H. Mooney, Judge.

          Adrian T. Smith argued the cause and fled the briefs for appellant.

          Carson L. Whitehead, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent Department of Human Services. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.

          Ginger Fitch fled the brief for respondent K. R. M.

          Before Powers, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Chief Judge, and Landau, Senior Judge. [*]

         [299 Or.App. 362] Case Summary: This appeal arises out of a juvenile dependency proceeding, in which the Department of Human Services required mother to participate in observed urinalysis. Before the juvenile court, mother argued that the observed urinalysis violated her state and federal constitutional rights, and she sought an order for DHS to provide her unobserved urinalysis, which the court denied. Held: The juvenile court did not err in denying the mother's motion for unobserved urinalysis. The Court of Appeals determined that the record was inadequate to reach her constitutional claims.

         Affirmed.

         [299 Or.App. 363] POWERS, P. J.

         This appeal arises out of a juvenile dependency proceeding, in which mother was required to participate in drug testing as directed by the Department of Human Services (DHS). After completing a substance abuse evaluation, DHS assigned mother to the urinalysis hotline, which directed mother to a laboratory for an observed urinalysis or UA on random days. Before the juvenile court, mother argued that observed urinalysis violated her state and federal constitutional rights and sought an order for DHS to provide her unobserved urinalysis, which the court denied. We have jurisdiction under ORS 419A.205(lXd), which provides for jurisdiction of post-judgment orders that "adversely affect[] the rights or duties of a party," and, based on this record, we affirm.

         The pertinent facts are mainly procedural and uncontested. Mother admitted two bases for juvenile court jurisdiction, including that her substance abuse, if left untreated, interfered with her ability to safely parent. In taking jurisdiction in the underlying dependency case, the court ordered mother to participate in a substance abuse evaluation and to follow any and all recommendations for treatment. Mother completed the substance abuse evaluation, and the evaluator concluded that she did not need treatment. DHS then assigned mother to participate in the urinalysis hotline, which requires participants to call the hotline each day to see if they have been randomly selected for a urinalysis that day.

         At a dispositional review hearing, mother objected to being observed while producing a urine sample and asked the court for an order permitting unobserved urinalysis.

"[MOTHER'S COUNSEL]: Essentially, Your Honor, unbeknownst to us, the Lane County Department of Human Services has a requirement that any urinalysis test be observed. And I'll give that argument to the Court at the proper time, but we're arguing that that's an unreasonable requirement ...

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.