From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re E.R.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Aug 21, 2013
308 P.3d 1111 (Or. Ct. App. 2013)

Opinion

0500459JV, 0500459JV2 0500459JV3 0900442JV, 0900442JV2 Petition Numbers 1200444M, 1200456 A153386 (Control), 1200445M; A153388.

2013-08-21

In the Matter of E.R., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner–Respondent, v. B.G., Appellant. In the Matter of C.G., a Child. Department of Human Services, Petitioner–Respondent, v. B.G., Appellant. In the Matter of J.G., a Child. Department of Human Services, Petitioner–Respondent, v. B.G., Appellant. In the Matter of K.P., a Child. Department of Human Services, Petitioner–Respondent, v. B.G., Appellant. In the Matter of K.G., a Child. Department of Human Services, Petitioner–Respondent, v. B.G., Appellant.

Klamath County Circuit Court. Cameron F. Wogan, Judge. Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Sarah Peterson, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Inge D. Wells, Senior Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.


Klamath County Circuit Court.
Cameron F. Wogan, Judge.
Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Sarah Peterson, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Inge D. Wells, Senior Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before ORTEGA, Presiding Judge, and SERCOMBE, Judge, and HADLOCK, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated dependency cases, father appeals judgments in which the juvenile court asserted jurisdiction over his four children. He asserts that the Department of Human Service (DHS) failed to present legally sufficient evidence to support the court's exercise of jurisdiction. SeeORS 419B.310(3) (“The facts alleged in the petition showing the child to be within the jurisdiction of the court as provided in ORS 419B.100(1), unless admitted, must be established by a preponderance of competent evidence.”). Specifically, father contends that DHS “failed to prove its factual allegations, and its failure to do so is dispositive and requires reversal.” The state, for its part, concedes that “the juvenile court erred in concluding that DHS had proved the facts alleged in the petitions by a preponderance of the evidence” and, for that reason, “the judgments should be reversed.” We agree and accept the state's concession.

In one of the judgments, the juvenile court also took jurisdiction over E.R., who is not father's child. Given that father is not E.R.'s parent or guardian, it appears to be uncontested that it was inappropriate for the court to assert jurisdiction over him as to father.

Judgments reversed as to C.G., J.G., K.P., and K.G.; with respect to E.R., reversed as to father; otherwise affirmed.




Summaries of

In re E.R.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Aug 21, 2013
308 P.3d 1111 (Or. Ct. App. 2013)
Case details for

In re E.R.

Case Details

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

Court:Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Date published: Aug 21, 2013

Citations

308 P.3d 1111 (Or. Ct. App. 2013)
258 Or. App. 307