On January 11, 2014 JLEC met for the first time of 2014. We welcomed 5 new members and had very robust discussion to include topics regarding CEJ contributions, disproportionate representation of juveniles in dependency cases as well at the February CLE.
The meetings can be downloaded here:
The survey results are in and we are thrilled that we have such interested members! Thank you for taking the time to give us valuable feedback that will help shape what we, as a committee, provide to you. You can review the results here and if you have any additional input, please email Morgan Long at firstname.lastname@example.org
HB 3363 created the Joint Interim Task Force on Juvenile Court Proceedings. The group met yesterday for the first time and the meeting materials can be found here.
DHS will be implementing Differential Response next year in 5 Casey Counties. You can find out more about the new program here.
Dept. of Human Services v. A. R. S. II
Issued: May 15, 2013
Reversed and Remanded
Mother and child made various assignments of error. The court determined that the trial court erred in relying on conditions and circumstances outside of the scope of the basis for jurisdiction – specifically, mother’s personality disorder – when denying mother and child’s motions to dismiss and assessing mother’s progress.
Dept. of Human Services v. A. J. M.
Issued: May 15, 2013
Under ORS 419B.923(1)(a), a judgment may be modified (1) to correct a “clerical mistake” in the judgment, or (2) to correct errors in the judgment arising from “oversight or omission.” Those types of modifications may be made by the juvenile court at any time, even during the pendency of an appeal.
The trial court initially issued a permanency judgment failed to recite a brief description of services offered by DHS to the mother. During the pendency of the appeal, the court issued a corrected judgment containing the list of services that DHS offered to mother. The court determined that the trial court was correcting an “oversight or omission” and denied mother’s request for relief.
In addition, the court noted that 419B.476(5)(a) requires that court enter a permanency judgment within 20 days of the hearing. Mother raised the issue that the corrected judgment was not entered within the time allowed. However, the court also rejected this argument because the initial judgment was entered within 20 days and 419B.923(1)(a) allows a court to correct a judgment at any time.
Dept. of Human Services v. A. B.
Issued: May 30, 2013
Reversed and Remanded – Per Curiam
At the time of the review hearing, mother had ameliorated all of the issues on which jurisdiction was established. The only remaining allegation was that father lacked legal custody. Repeating the holding in State v. A. L. M., 232 Or App 13 (2009), a court cannot continue jurisdiction under 419B.100 based solely on lack of a custody order if all other safety threats have been ameliorated.
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.