Dept. of Human Services v. T. J. D. J.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 231 May 10, 2017 503 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of A. B. B., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. T. J. D. J., Appellant. Marion County Circuit Court J140737; A163536 (Control) In the Matter of A. B. B., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. T. J. D. J., Appellant. Marion County Circuit Court J140784; A163537 In the Matter of A. B. B., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. T. J. D. J., Appellant. Marion County Circuit Court 15JU00035; A163538 Heidi O. Strauch, Judge pro tempore. Submitted April 5, 2017. Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Valerie Colas, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. 504 Dept. of Human Services v. T. J. D. J. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Erin K. Galli, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Egan, Presiding Judge, and Lagesen, Judge, and Linder, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM Appeal dismissed. Cite as 285 Or App 503 (2017) 505 PER CURIAM Father appeals review judgments under ORS 419B.449 in juvenile dependency proceedings that are subject to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). He assigns error to the juvenile court’s determination in those judgments that DHS has made “active efforts” to return his child to the care of her family. See ORS 419B.340(1) (requiring juvenile to court to assess whether DHS has made “active efforts” to a permit a child to stay in, or return to, child’s home in certain orders in dependency cases subject to ICWA). In Dept. of Human Services v. A .B. B., 285 Or App 409, ___ P3d ___ (2017), decided today, we dismissed an appeal by child from the same judgments, concluding that, under State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Vockrodt, 147 Or App 4, 8, 934 P2d 620 (1997), child’s rights were not sufficiently affected by the judgments to render them appealable under ORS 419A.200(1). For substantially the same reasons as those we articulated in A. B. B., we conclude that the judgments are not appealable by father. Appeal dismissed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
