Dept. of Human Services v. D. L. H.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
624 July 28, 2021 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of G. L. T., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. D. L. H., Appellant. Jackson County Circuit Court 20JU04703; A174966 (Control) In the Matter of R. J. T., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. D. L. H., Appellant. Jackson County Circuit Court 20JU04704; A174967 In the Matter of J. C. T., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. D. L. H., Appellant. Jackson County Circuit Court 20JU04705; A174962 In the Matter of E. J. T., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. No. 551 Cite as 313 Or App 624 (2021) 625 D. L. H., Appellant. Jackson County Circuit Court 20JU04706; A174965 Benjamin M. Bloom, Judge. Submitted June 29, 2021. Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Holly Telerant, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Carson L. Whitehead, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and Kamins, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. 626 Dept. of Human Services v. D. L. H. PER CURIAM Mother appeals a dependency judgment taking jurisdiction over four of her children. On appeal, she challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the juvenile court’s determination that it had jurisdiction over each child. Having reviewed the record, we disagree that there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s jurisdiction determination. Mother also raises an unpreserved challenge to the court’s legal authority to order her to participate in a psychological evaluation. Even assuming the court erred, and plainly so, mother has since completed the psychological evaluation and has not explained on appeal how, under those circumstances, a ruling in her favor would afford her meaningful relief; we therefore would decline to exercise our discretion to correct the alleged error. Affirmed.
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.
