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 A.-R. A. S.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

October 16, 2019

In the Matter of A.-R. A. S., a Child.
v.
T. S. J., Appellant. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, In the Matter of S. S. S., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
T. S. J., Appellant.

          Argued and submitted July 29, 2019

          Curry County Circuit Court 18JU08093, 18JU08094 Cynthia Lynnae Beaman, Judge.

          Shannon Flowers, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. Also on the brief was Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, Offce of Public Defense Services.

          Inge D. Wells, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General; Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General; and Cecil A. Reniche-Smith, Assistant Attorney General.

          Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Powers, Judge, and Mooney, Judge.

         [300 Or.App. 37] Case Summary:

         Mother appeals from juvenile court judgments taking dependency jurisdiction over her children. The court took jurisdiction over the children after mother and father admitted to allegations in the amended dependency petitions for the children. On appeal, mother argues that the allegations to which she and father admitted were insufficient to support jurisdiction. Held: Mother's and father's admissions were sufficient to support the court's exercise of dependency jurisdiction over the children.

         [300 Or.App. 38] ORTEGA, P. J.

         Mother appeals from juvenile court judgments taking dependency jurisdiction over her children, A and S, entered after she and father admitted to jurisdictional allegations in the amended dependency petitions for the children and waived their respective rights to an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, mother argues that the court plainly erred in taking jurisdiction over her children because the allegations to which she and father admitted were insufficient to support jurisdiction.[1] We conclude that, under Dept. of Human Services v. D. D., 238 Or.App. 134, 241 P.3d 1177 (2010), rev den, 349 Or. 602 (2011), mother's and father's admissions were sufficient to support the court's exercise of dependency jurisdiction over A and S. Thus, we affirm.

         The relevant facts are procedural and not disputed. The Department of Human Services (DHS) petitioned the juvenile court to exercise dependency jurisdiction over A and S. In each of the amended petitions, DHS alleged, in part, as follows:

"2. The children are within the jurisdiction of the Court by reason of the following facts and pursuant to ORS 4l9B.lOO(1)(c):
"The conditions or circumstances of said child[ren] are such as to endanger his/her own welfare by reason of the following facts:
"a) [Mother] is the biological mother of [A and S].
[300 Or.App. 39] "b) [Mother's] mental health problems interfere with her ability to safely ...

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.