Dep't of Human Servs. v. C. M. M. (In re J. A. E.)

Full title: In the Matter of J. A. E., a Child. v. C. M. M. and A. C. E., Appellants…

Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon

Date published: Jan 26, 2022

317 Or. App. 279 (Or. Ct. App. 2022)

Opinion

A176365 A176366 A176367

01-26-2022

In the Matter of J. A. E., a Child. v. C. M. M. and A. C. E., Appellants. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, In the Matter of J. M. E., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. C. M. M. and A. C. E., Appellants. In the Matter of J. R. E., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. C. M. M. and A. C. E., Appellants.

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.

PER CURIAM.

Submitted December 28, 2021.

Columbia County Circuit Court 20JU00245; 20JU00246; 20JU00247; Michael T. Clarke, Judge.

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.

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.