DHS motion in Oregon

2023Rather, the presiding judge of Clackamas Cite as 326 Or App 149 (2023) 175 County issued an order three days before the start of trial mod- ifying court operations in response to changing COVID-19 pandemic conditions and providing that all TPR proceedings were to be held in person, that a party could file a motion for remote testimony to be determined by the assigned judge, and that the order superseded all prior inconsistent orders.

2023Rather, the presiding judge of Clackamas Cite as 326 Or App 149 (2023) 175 County issued an order three days before the start of trial mod- ifying court operations in response to changing COVID-19 pandemic conditions and providing that all TPR proceedings were to be held in person, that a party could file a motion for remote testimony to be determined by the assigned judge, and that the order superseded all prior inconsistent orders.

2023Cite as 326 Or App 426 (2023) 435 As noted above, mother contends that the juvenile court erred by ruling that DHS made active efforts and that her progress toward reunification was insufficient.

2023Cite as 326 Or App 426 (2023) 435 As noted above, mother contends that the juvenile court erred by ruling that DHS made active efforts and that her progress toward reunification was insufficient.

2024Reviewing for legal error, ORS 183.482(8)(a); King v. Dept. of Public Safety Standards, 289 Or App 314, 315 , 412 P3d 1183 (2017), rev den, 363 Or 104 (2018), we affirm.

2024Reviewing for legal error, ORS 183.482(8)(a); King v. Dept. of Public Safety Standards, 289 Or App 314, 315 , 412 P3d 1183 (2017), rev den, 363 Or 104 (2018), we affirm.

2024Reviewing for legal error, ORS 183.482(8)(a); King v. Dept. of Public Safety Standards, 289 Or App 314, 315 , 412 P3d 1183 (2017), rev den, 363 Or 104 (2018), we affirm.

2024In Kasliner v. State of Oregon, 330 Or App 85, 100 , ___ P3d ___ (2023), decided today, we held that when reviewing an order in other than a contested case for sub- stantial evidence, “courts should defer to a circuit court’s subsidiary findings of fact that are supported by the record.” In Kasliner, the trial court considered exculpatory evi- dence that the petitioner had added to the record during the court’s review proceeding—including testimony by an expert psychologist and two relatives that the teen girl who reported abuse did not have a reputation for truthfulness.

2021In DHS’s motion, DHS highlighted that the father had only recently started Cite as 312 Or App 472 (2021) 479 engaging in services addressing his ability to maintain a stable and safe residence for the child.

2021During an evidentiary hearing on DHS’s motion, the caseworker testified that she had “concerns about father’s ability to be ‘proactive’ and ‘planful’ with respect to ensur- ing his son’s treatment”; “she was unsure that the child would make it to his appointments consistently”; and she had “received information bringing her to question father’s ability to understand and participate in his child’s treat- ment appointments,” i.e., “when father did attend appoint- ments, he was ‘either not in the appointment with [his child] the entire time or not fully engaged or coming in and out of the appoint

2020DHS asserts that the Cite as 307 Or App 17 (2020) 21 juvenile court’s dismissal of dependency jurisdiction makes this appeal moot because our decision in the matter will not have any practical effect on the rights of the parties.

2019On September 19, 2018, the court issued a letter opinion that provided, in part: “(1) [Appellant] and [biological mother] were a legally married same-sex couple on November 18, 2017, when [child] was born to [biological mother]. [Appellant] and [bio- logical mother] were subsequently divorced on February 1, 2018, in Lassen County, California, which judgment of dissolution was reviewed and upheld by the same court on June 22, 2018; “(2) Pursuant to ORS 109.070(1), [appellant’s] parent- age of [child] is rebuttably presumed because [appellant] was married to [biological mother] at the time of [c

2017See ORS 183.482(8)(a)(B); Vermeulen v. Dept. of Human Services, 231 Or App 410, 419 , 220 P3d 93 (2009) (remanding case to an ALJ for reconsideration under the correct interpretation of a DHS rule). 5 We turn to the second assignment of error.

2017See ORS 183.482(8)(a)(B); Vermeulen v. Dept. of Human Services, 231 Or App 410, 419 , 220 P3d 93 (2009) (remanding case to an ALJ for reconsideration under the correct interpretation of a DHS rule). 5 We turn to the second assignment of error.

2017Id. at 284 .

2015Instead, appellants assert that the proper procedure was for DHS to file new dependency petition to initiate dependency proceedings over O and to remove O from grandparents’ care, alleging that, based on grandparents’ care of O, O’s condition or circumstances are such as to endanger her welfare. “‘Standing’ is a legal term that identifies whether a party to a legal proceeding possesses a status or qualification necessary for the assertion, enforcement, or adjudication of legal rights or duties.” Kellas v. Dept. of Corrections, 341 Or 471, 476-77 , 145 P3d 139 (2006) (citations and footnote omi

2015Instead, appellants assert that the proper procedure was for DHS to file new dependency petition to initiate dependency proceedings over O and to remove O from grandparents’ care, alleging that, based on grandparents’ care of O, O’s condition or circumstances are such as to endanger her welfare. “‘Standing’ is a legal term that identifies whether a party to a legal proceeding possesses a status or qualification necessary for the assertion, enforcement, or adjudication of legal rights or duties.” Kellas v. Dept. of Corrections, 341 Or 471, 476-77 , 145 P3d 139 (2006) (citations and footnote omi

2012Jones v. General Motors Corp., 325 Or 404, 408 , 939 P2d 608 (1997).

2012Jones v. General Motors Corp., 325 Or 404, 408 , 939 P2d 608 (1997).