From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Wade

Oregon Court of Appeals
Nov 29, 1974
19 Or. App. 835 (Or. Ct. App. 1974)

Summary

In Wade the children were represented on appeal by the Child Advocacy Project of the Metropolitan Public Defender, acting under a contract with the Division.

Summary of this case from State ex rel Segrest v. Bradshaw

Opinion

No. 38,197

Appellants Ralph Wade's and Claudia Wade's petition for Reconsideration filed November 29, 1974. Former opinion filed October 28, 1974 19 Or. App. 314, 527 P.2d 753 (1974) Former opinion adhered to December 16, 1974 Petition for review denied February 11, 1975

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County.

MERCEDES F. DEIZ, Judge.

B. B. Bouneff and Bouneff, Muller Marshall, Portland, for petition.

No appearance contra.

Before LANGTRY, Presiding Judge, and FOLEY and FORT, Judges.


FORMER OPINION ADHERED TO.


In a petition for review (reconsideration by this court) counsel for the parents argues:

"Review is warranted in this case by virtue of the fact that the Court of Appeals found erroneously that the due process requirements of the Constitution of the United States had been fulfilled based upon a finding that appointed counsel participated in arranging the interview by the appellants with Dr. Morrison when no such evidence exists in the trial of this matter * * *."

Reference to the opinion discloses that there was more than one basis for the questioned ruling. However, with reference to the assertion that "no such evidence" of counsel's participation exists, we have referred again to the transcript. Dr. Morrison testified that he had discussed with Mr. Bouneff (the parents' counsel) and the deputy district attorney the need for further interviews by him with the parents. Mr. Bouneff did not question this in his cross-examination of Dr. Morrison. In its brief the state, with reference to this testimony, said:

"* * * Mr. Bouneff, Dr. Morrison and counsel for Respondent discussed the need for a second examination and arrangements were made through counsel * * *."

We find no denial of this by Mr. Bouneff anywhere in the records or briefs, and hence consider our challenged conclusion to be correct. We therefore adhere to our former opinion.


Summaries of

State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Wade

Oregon Court of Appeals
Nov 29, 1974
19 Or. App. 835 (Or. Ct. App. 1974)

In Wade the children were represented on appeal by the Child Advocacy Project of the Metropolitan Public Defender, acting under a contract with the Division.

Summary of this case from State ex rel Segrest v. Bradshaw

In State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Wade, 19 Or. App. 314, 19 Or. App. 835, 527 P.2d 753, 528 P.2d 1382 (1974), Sup Ct review denied (1975), decided on October 28, 1974, we held "that independent counsel must represent the children in all termination proceedings."

Summary of this case from State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Gonzalez

In Wade we noted that it is possible that "children involved in these proceedings have interests which are unique to them, that is, shared with neither the state nor their parents * * *."

Summary of this case from State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Gonzalez
Case details for

State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Wade

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF EZRA AND HADASSAH WADE, MINOR CHILDREN. STATE EX REL…

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Nov 29, 1974

Citations

19 Or. App. 835 (Or. Ct. App. 1974)
528 P.2d 1382

Citing Cases

F. v. C

Shortly after the hearings below had been completed father filed with the court a motion for an order…

State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Geist

Indeed, we have exercised our jurisdiction over similar claims at least twice before. In State ex rel Juv.…