Dept. of Human Services v. M. C.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
310 August 16, 2017 No. 400 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of E. R. F. C., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. M. C., Appellant. Clackamas County Circuit Court 150350J; Petition Number 150350J01; A164251 Susie L. Norby, Judge. Submitted July 12, 2017. Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Christopher A. Perdue, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Egan, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Wollheim, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed. Cite as 287 Or App 310 (2017) 311 PER CURIAM Mother appeals a juvenile court judgment denying her motion to dismiss jurisdiction and terminate the wardship over her child and changing the permanency plan for her child from reunification to adoption. On appeal, mother raises four assignments of error. We write only to address mother’s first assignment, in which she contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion to dismiss jurisdiction and terminate the wardship.1 Specifically, mother asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support continued jurisdiction in this case. The state, for its part, concedes that the juvenile court erred in denying mother’s motion to dismiss jurisdiction and terminate the wardship. We agree with the parties that the evidence was insufficient to support continued jurisdiction and accept the state’s concession. Accordingly, the juvenile court’s judgment must be reversed. Reversed. 1 In her second, third, and fourth assignments, mother challenges the juvenile court’s decision to change the permanency plan from reunification to adoption. In light of our resolution of mother’s first assignment of error, which is dispositive, we do not consider mother’s remaining contentions.
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.
