Judith Swanson put together a great list of ALL of the proposed legislation relating to Juvenile Law. This year has 38 bills that would impact our practice. From a bill stating that grandparents should be parties in dependency proceedings to a statute creating a juvenile aid and assist process, this is a session to watch.
You can track the bills here.
Youth, Rights & Justice, Oregon’s nonprofit law firm for children, is seeking volunteer attorneys and law firm partners who will help some of Oregon’s most vulnerable children get the support they need to enroll in school, stay in school, succeed and graduate. The students who will be served will be in the foster care system, the juvenile justice system, or both. The majority of the students will reside in Washington County. Volunteer lawyers will help protect students’ rights to due process and to a “Free and Appropriate Public Education.”
Continue reading Call for Pro Bono Attorneys – Washington County
Dept. of Human Services v. K.L.W.
Under 419B.231(4), the court can order a guardian ad litum if it finds, by the preponderance of the evidence that:
(a) Due to the parent’s mental or physical disability or impairment, the parent lacks substantial capacity either to understand the nature and consequences of the proceeding or to give direction and assistance to the parent’s attorney on decisions the parent must make in the proceeding; and
(b) The appointment of a guardian ad litem is necessary to protect the parent’s rights in the proceeding during the period of the parent’s disability or impairment.
In this case, father had a delusional disorder that prevented him from acting in his best interests, though he could provide some direction to his attorney for his termination trial. There was enough evidence to support the trial court’s decision to appoint a GAL on behalf of father.
After the GAL was appointed the GAL stipulated to termination. Father did not preserve the argument that the GAL’s stipulation was outside of the GAL’s statutory authority to act on behalf of father. Father then contended the GAL’s action violated due process because the GAL did not confer with him prior to the stipulation. The court held that due process requires that termination proceedings be fundamentally fair, but in this case he had failed to show how his due process rights were violated so the court upheld the stipulation to termination.
B.A. v. Webb
This civil case involves accusations of sex abuse and testimony from experts opining on the plaintiff’s credibility. The court held that a trial court has a sua sponte duty to prevent vouching and that State v. Southard, 347 Or 127 (2009), is a case that, though coming from a criminal posture, is about OEC 403 and is applicable to all cases where the rules of evidence apply.
Additional information for the Juvenile Law Training Academy, Day 2
Continue reading Conference Update: Day 2
Additional information for the Juvenile Law Training Academy, Day 1, Afternoon Session
Continue reading Conference Update: Day 1, Afternoon Session
Additional information for the Juvenile Law Training Academy, Day 1, Morning Session
Continue reading Conference Update: Day 1, Morning Session
This past Monday, Think Out Loud focused on a study out of Multnomah County which showed that students of color are disproportionally disciplined compared to their white counterparts. They discussed the reasons for the disparity and what the schools and community participants are doing to ameliorate the reasons for the disproportionate discipline.
Guests included: Sheila Warren, Director of Portland Parent Union; Melissa Goff Executive Director of PPS Office of Teaching and Learning; Cynthia Mohiuddin, Attorney and Mother.
Dept. of Human Services v. L.G.
This is a reconsideration of Dept. of Human Services v. L.G., 251 Or App 1, 281 P3d 681 (2012) where the court determined that the bases for jurisdiction no longer existed. Specifically, there was no longer a risk of child being exposed to domestic violence. The court allowed reconsideration as the state contended that the court ovelooked the other jurisdictional allegation that mother failed to provide for the child’s sibling’s medical care. The court did not find that mother’s failure to provide the medical care for a different child created a current threat of harm to the child at issue and adhered to the former opinion.