Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. J. D. J. (In re A. B. B.)

Full title: In the Matter of A. B. B., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES…

Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Date published: May 10, 2017

393 P.3d 1207 (Or. Ct. App. 2017)

285 Or. App. 503

Opinion

A163536 (Control) A163537 A163538

05-10-2017

In the Matter of A. B. B., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. T. J. D. J., Appellant. In the Matter of A. B. B., a Child. Department of Human Services, Petitioner-Respondent, v. T. J. D. J., Appellant. In the Matter of A. B. B., a Child. Department of Human Services, Petitioner-Respondent, v. T. J. D. J., Appellant.

Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Valerie Colas, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Erin K. Galli, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Valerie Colas, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Erin K. Galli, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Egan, Presiding Judge, and Lagesen, Judge, and Linder, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAMFather appeals review judgments under ORS 419B.449 in juvenile dependency proceedings that are subject to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). He assigns error to the juvenile court's determination in those judgments that DHS has made "active efforts" to return his child to the care of her family. See ORS 419B.340(1) (requiring juvenile court to assess whether DHS has made "active efforts" to permit a child to stay in, or return to, child's home in certain orders in dependency cases subject to ICWA). In Dept. of Human Services v. A .B. B. , 285 Or.App. 409, –––P.3d –––– (2017), decided today, we dismissed an appeal by child from the same judgments, concluding that, under State ex rel. Juv. Dept. v. Vockrodt , 147 Or.App. 4, 8, 934 P.2d 620 (1997), child's rights were not sufficiently affected by the judgments to render them appealable under ORS 419A.200(1). For substantially the same reasons as those we articulated in A. B. B. , we conclude that the judgments are not appealable by father.

Appeal dismissed.