Summary
accepting DHS concession that the order for a psychological evaluation did not bear a rational relationship to the bases of jurisdiction
Summary of this case from Department of Human Services v. T. L. M.Opinion
A165304 (Control) A165305
12-28-2017
In the Matter of A. M. D. B., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. F. D. B., Appellant. In the Matter of S. R. N. B., a Child. Department of Human Services, Petitioner-Respondent, v. F. D. B., Appellant.
Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Tiffany Keast, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Christopher A. Purdue, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Tiffany Keast, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Christopher A. Purdue, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Egan, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge.
PER CURIAMIn this consolidated juvenile dependency case, father appeals judgments of the juvenile court asserting jurisdiction over his two children. Father raises eight assignments of error, the first seven of which we reject without discussion. In his eighth assignment of error, father contends that the juvenile court erred in ordering him to undergo a psychological evaluation. He asserts that the evaluation requirement does not bear a rational relationship to the bases for jurisdiction. The Department of Human Services, acknowledging that it did not allege that father had psychological problems that contributed to the bases for jurisdiction and that it did not request a psychological evaluation, concedes that the juvenile court erred by imposing that requirement. We agree and accept the concession. See Dept. of Human Services v. B. W. , 249 Or. App. 123, 128, 275 P.3d 989 (2012) (there must be a rational relationship between the requirement to undergo a psychological evaluation and the basis for juvenile court jurisdiction).
Remanded for entry of judgments omitting requirement that father is to undergo a psychological evaluation; otherwise affirmed.