Dept. of Human Services v. E. D. H.

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED: May 02, 2012 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of L. H., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. E. D. H., Appellant. Douglas County Circuit Court 1000271 Petition Number 10JU188 In the Matter of E. H., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. E. D. H., Appellant. Douglas County Circuit Court 1000272 Petition Number 10JU188 A149994 William A. Marshall, Judge. Submitted on March 21, 2012. Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Kimberlee Petrie Volm, Deputy Public Defender, Appellate Division, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Justice J. Rillera, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Haselton, Chief Judge, and Duncan, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded. 1 PER CURIAM 2 In this dependency case, mother appeals judgments of the juvenile court 3 changing the permanency plans for her children, L and E, from reunification to adoption. 4 Mother raises two issues, one of which is that the court erred in not allowing her to testify 5 by telephone at the permanency hearing. We reject that argument without discussion. 6 See ORS 45.400(2) (motion to testify by telephone requires written notice to other parties 7 to the proceeding). Mother also contends that the court erred in failing to include in the 8 judgments the determinations required under ORS 419B.476(5)(a), including a 9 description of the efforts of the Department of Human Services toward implementing the 10 plan of reunification. The state concedes that error, and we agree. State ex rel DHS v. M. 11 A. (A139693), 227 Or App 172, 205 P3d 36 (2009). Accordingly, we accept the state's 12 concession and reverse and remand the judgments for the juvenile court to remedy those 13 defects. 14 Reversed and remanded. 1

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.