Dep't of Human Servs. v. D. L. H. (In re G. L. T.)

Full title: In the MATTER OF G. L. T., a Child. Department of Human Services…

Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Date published: Jul 28, 2021

313 Or. App. 624 (Or. Ct. App. 2021)

491 P.3d 833

Opinion

A174966 (Control), A174967, A174962, A174965

07-28-2021

In the MATTER OF G. L. T., a Child. Department of Human Services, Petitioner-Respondent, v. D. L. H., Appellant. In the Matter of R. J. T., a Child. Department of Human Services, Petitioner-Respondent, v. D. L. H., Appellant. In the Matter of J. C. T., a Child. Department of Human Services, Petitioner-Respondent, v. D. L. H., Appellant. In the Matter of E. J. T., a Child. Department of Human Services, Petitioner-Respondent, v. D. L. H., Appellant.

Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Holly Telerant, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Carson L. Whitehead, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

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

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Carson L. Whitehead, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

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

PER CURIAM

Mother appeals a dependency judgment taking jurisdiction over four of her children. On appeal, she challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the juvenile court's determination that it had jurisdiction over each child. Having reviewed the record, we disagree that there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's jurisdiction determination. Mother also raises an unpreserved challenge to the court's legal authority to order her to participate in a psychological evaluation. Even assuming the court erred, and plainly so, mother has since completed the psychological evaluation and has not explained on appeal how, under those circumstances, a ruling in her favor would afford her meaningful relief; we therefore would decline to exercise our discretion to correct the alleged error.

Affirmed.