State v. B. H. H., 323 P.3d 484 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. B. H. H., 323 P.3d 484 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“stated another way, without evidence that one parent is unable to protect the child from the other parent, or that the child will suffer some risk of actual harm because one parent lacks sole legal custody, lack of a custody order alone is an insufficient basis for jurisdiction.”
6 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Dept. of Human Services v. S. S. (orctapp, 2020-10-07)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Dept. of Human Services v. S. S.
Or. Ct. App. · 2020 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
stated another way, without evidence that one parent is unable to protect the child from the other parent, or that the child will suffer some risk of actual harm because one parent lacks sole legal custody, lack of a custody order alone is an insufficient basis for jurisdiction.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of B. H. H., Alleged to be a Mentally Ill Person. STATE OF OREGON
v.
B. H. H.
130666395; A154623.
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Feb 26, 2014.
323 P.3d 484
Garrett A. Richardson and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed the brief for appellant., Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Carolyn Alexander, Senior Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Armstrong, Egan, Nakamoto.
Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 68%
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Oregon (1)
PER CURIAM

Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing her as a mentally ill person for a period not to exceed 180 days. ORS 426.130. She asserts that the state failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that, because of a mental disorder, she is a danger to herself and unable to provide for her basic personal needs. ORS 426.005(l)(e)(A), (B). The state concedes that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the involuntary commitment and that the judgment should be reversed. We agree, accept the state’s concession, and reverse on that basis. Accordingly, we do not address appellant’s other, unpreserved assignment of error, in which she contends that the trial court erred in failing to advise her of the possible results of the commitment proceeding, as required by ORS 426.100(l)(c).

Reversed.