Opinion
A175022
07-28-2021
In the MATTER OF A. R. M., a Child. Department of Human Services, Petitioner-Respondent, v. D. M., aka D. D. R. M., and J. K., Appellants.
Kristen G. Williams argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant D. M. George W. Kelly, Eugene, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant J. K. Inge D. Wells, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.
Kristen G. Williams argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant D. M.
George W. Kelly, Eugene, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant J. K.
Inge D. Wells, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.
Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and Powers, Judge.
PER CURIAM In this juvenile dependency case, mother and father appeal from a judgment terminating wardship and dismissing dependency jurisdiction over their child, A. This case is one of four related cases involving mother, father, A, and mother's child, O. The Department of Human Services (DHS) had wardship of A and O, and they were placed in foster care. Mother's father (grandfather) sought to be the guardian of A and O through a probate guardianship. Mother and father opposed that guardianship. Ultimately, the juvenile court changed A's and O's permanency plans from reunification to guardianship, appointed grandfather as their guardian through the probate code, and terminated wardship and dismissed dependency jurisdiction of A and O. In the companion case addressing the guardianship of A, Keffer v. A. R. M. , 313 Or. App. 503, ––– P.3d –––– (2021), issued on this date, we conclude that the juvenile court did not have the authority to appoint grandfather as A's guardian through the probate code, and, accordingly, we reversed and remanded the limited judgment of guardianship. DHS concedes that, if we reverse the guardianship judgments for A and O, the judgments terminating wardship and dismissing dependency jurisdiction must also be reversed. We agree with that concession. Because the juvenile court's dismissal of its dependency jurisdiction over A was dependent upon her placement with grandfather as her guardian, we also reverse and remand the judgment terminating wardship and dismissing dependency jurisdiction.
Reversed and remanded.