Dep't of Human Servs. v. R. O. (In re A. O.)

Full title: In the Matter of A. O., a Child. v. R. O. and K. O., Appellants…

Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon

Date published: Oct 27, 2021

315 Or. App. 487 (Or. Ct. App. 2021)

Opinion

A175604

10-27-2021

In the Matter of A. O., a Child. v. R. O. and K. O., Appellants. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent,

Kristen G. Williams filed the brief for appellant R. O. Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Daniel J. Casey, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the briefs for appellant K. O. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jon Žunkel-deCoursey, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

PER CURIAM

Submitted September 29, 2021

Marion County Circuit Court 20JU05820; Natasha A. Zimmerman, Judge pro tempore.

Kristen G. Williams filed the brief for appellant R. O.

Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Daniel J. Casey, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the briefs for appellant K. O.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jon Žunkel-deCoursey, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and Kamins, Judge.

PER CURIAM

Mother and father appeal from a review judgment under ORS 419B.449. They assign error to the juvenile court's determination in that judgment that the Department of Human Services (DHS) has made reasonable efforts to reunify the family. But, under the circumstances present here, the review judgment is not appealable. See Dept. of Human Services v. A. B. B., 285 Or.App. 409, 413, 396 P.3d 306 (2017), rev dismissed, 362 Or. 508 (2018) (citing Dept. of Human Services v. A. D. D. B., 278 Or.App. 503, 509, 511, 375 P.3d 575, rev den, 360 Or. 237 (2016), and adhering to previous understanding of the appealability of judgments iterated in State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Vockrodt, 147 Or.App. 4, 8, 934 P.2d 620 (1997)). Contrary to mother's argument, Dept. of Human Services v. J. R. D., 312 Or.App. 510, __ P.3d __ (2021), did not overrule or abrogate our prior cases; J. R. D. involved a permanency judgment under ORS 419B.476, not a review judgment. We reject the contention that A. B. B. and our prior decisions were plainly wrong and decline to overrule them.

Appeal dismissed.