Dept. of Human Services v. C. M. M.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 56 January 26, 2022 279 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of J. A. E., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. C. M. M. and A. C. E., Appellants. Columbia County Circuit Court 20JU00245; A176365 (Control) In the Matter of J. M. E., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. C. M. M. and A. C. E., Appellants. Columbia County Circuit Court 20JU00246; A176366 In the Matter of J. R. E., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. C. M. M. and A. C. E., Appellants. Columbia County Circuit Court 20JU00247; A176367 Michael T. Clarke, Judge. Submitted December 28, 2021. 280 Dept. of Human Services v. C. M. M. George W. Kelly filed the brief for appellant A. C. E. Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Holly Telerant, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant C. M. M. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Shannon T. Reel, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before James, Presiding Judge, and Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Kamins, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. Cite as 317 Or App 279 (2022) 281 PER CURIAM Parents appeal permanency judgments changing the permanency plans for their three children from reunification to adoption. They assign error to the juvenile court’s determination that the children’s permanency plans should be changed away from reunification, contending that the court erred in concluding that the children could not be returned to parents’ care within a reasonable period of time. In addition, with respect to their youngest child only, they contend that the juvenile court erred in determining that his permanency plan should be adoption and not guardianship. On the first point, having reviewed the record, we conclude that the court did not err in determining that the permanency plans should be changed away from reunification. On the second point, the juvenile court now has changed the permanency plan for parents’ youngest child to guardianship, so that issue has become moot and we do not reach it for that reason. 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.
