419B.881
Disclosure; scope; when required; exceptions; breach of duty to disclose. (1) In all proceedings brought
under ORS 419B.100 or 419B.500, each party, including the state, shall disclose
to each other party and to a guardian ad litem appointed under ORS 419B.231 the
following information and material within the possession or under the control
of the party:
(a) The names and
addresses of all persons the party intends to call as witnesses at any stage of
the hearing, together with any relevant written or recorded statements or
memoranda of any oral statements of such persons;
(b) Any written
or recorded statements or memoranda of any oral statements made either by the
parent or by the child to any other party or agent for any other party;
(c) Any reports
or statements of experts who will be called as witnesses, including the results
of any physical or mental examinations and of comparisons or experiments that
the party intends to offer in evidence at the hearing; and
(d) Any books,
papers, documents or photographs that the party intends to offer in evidence at
the hearing, or that were obtained from or belong to any other party.
(2)(a) Disclosure
under subsection (1) of this section must be made as soon as practicable
following the filing of a petition and no later than:
(A) Thirty days
after a petition alleging jurisdiction has been filed.
(B) Three days
before any review hearing, except for information received or discovered less
than three days prior to the hearing.
(C) Ten days
before a permanency hearing or a termination trial, except for information
received or discovered less than 10 days prior to the hearing or trial.
(b) The court may
supervise the exercise of discovery to the extent necessary to insure that it
proceeds properly and expeditiously.
(3)(a) When a
ward has been placed in the legal custody of the Department of Human Services
for care, placement and supervision under ORS 419B.337, the department shall
disclose to all parties the case plan developed under ORS 419B.343,
modifications to the case plan and any written material or information about
services provided to the ward, or to the ward’s parent or parents, under the
case plan.
(b) Disclosure
under this subsection must be made within 10 days of:
(A) Completion or
modification of the case plan; and
(B) Receipt by
the department of the written material or information about services provided
under the case plan.
(4) The
obligation to disclose is an ongoing obligation and if a party finds, either
before or during the hearing, additional material or information that is
subject to disclosure, the information or material shall be promptly disclosed.
(5) The following
material and information need not be disclosed:
(a) Attorney work
product; and
(b) Transcripts,
recordings or memoranda of testimony of witnesses before the grand jury, except
transcripts or recordings of testimony of a party to the current juvenile court
proceeding.
(6) A party may
not disclose a record of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender
expression, as defined in ORS 409.225, under this section unless:
(a) The
department determines, in written findings, that failure to disclose the record
is reasonably likely to jeopardize the child’s safety or well-being; or
(b) The child or
the child’s attorney consents to the disclosure.
(7) Upon a
showing of good cause, the court may at any time order that specified
disclosure be denied, restricted or deferred or make such other order as is
appropriate.
(8) Upon request
of a party, the court may permit a showing of good cause for denial or
regulation of disclosure by the parties or the contents of subpoenaed
materials, or portion of the showing, to be made in camera. A record shall be
made of the proceeding.
(9) If the court
enters an order following an in camera showing, the entire record of the
showing shall be sealed and preserved in the records of the court, to be made
available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal. The trial court
may, after disposition, unseal the record.
(10) When some
parts of certain material are subject to disclosure and other parts are not, as
much of the material as is subject to disclosure shall be disclosed.
(11) Upon being
notified of any breach of a duty to disclose material or information, the court
may:
(a) Order the
violating party to permit inspection of the material;
(b) Grant a
continuance;
(c) Refuse to
permit the witness to testify;
(d) Refuse to
receive in evidence the material that was not disclosed; or
(e) Enter such
other order as the court considers appropriate. [Formerly 419B.300; 2005 c.450 §9;
2013 c.439 §1; 2023 c.129 §3]
Notes of Decisions
State ex rel. Juv. Dep't v. G. A. K., 201 P.3d 930 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 20× “The state argues that the trial court erred in (1) finding that the state had committed discovery violations under ORS 419B.881, (2) precluding the admission of evidence as sanctions for those alleged violations, and (3) dismissing the state’s petitions with prejudice.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. R. O., 504 P.3d 674 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 16× “The parents contend that (1) the court erred in determining that there was legally sufficient evidence to find “good cause,” and (2) even if there was good cause, the court abused its discretion in relieving DHS of its obliga- tion under ORS 419B.881(3) to provide their child’s…”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. R. A. B. (In re G. D.-J.), 429 P.3d 426 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 11× “" Children's counsel argued that mother was violating ORS 419B.881 as of October 23, 2017, by not providing information as to the content or length of any witness's testimony with the exception of one draft report from a "professional witness.”
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. v. GAK, 201 P.3d 930 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 20× “The state argues that the trial court erred in (1) finding that the state had committed discovery violations under ORS 419B.881, (2) precluding the admission of evidence as sanctions for those alleged violations, and (3) dismissing the state's petitions with prejudice.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. J. S. C., 336 Or. App. 373 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 8× “In this juvenile dependency case, mother appeals the juvenile court’s order denying her motion to bar the Department of Human Services’ (DHS) disclosure of her psychological evaluation to father pursuant to former ORS 419B.881(6) (2021).1 Mother and the children contend that the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.881(1) — 3 cases
State ex rel. Juv. Dep't v. G. A. K., 201 P.3d 930 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“The state argues that the trial court erred in (1) finding that the state had committed discovery violations under ORS 419B.881, (2) precluding the admission of evidence as sanctions for those alleged violations, and (3) dismissing the state’s petitions with prejudice.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. R. A. B. (In re G. D.-J.), 429 P.3d 426 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“" Children's counsel argued that mother was violating ORS 419B.881 as of October 23, 2017, by not providing information as to the content or length of any witness's testimony with the exception of one draft report from a "professional witness.”
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. v. GAK, 201 P.3d 930 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“The state argues that the trial court erred in (1) finding that the state had committed discovery violations under ORS 419B.881, (2) precluding the admission of evidence as sanctions for those alleged violations, and (3) dismissing the state's petitions with prejudice.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.881(1)(a) — 2 cases
State ex rel. Juv. Dep't v. G. A. K., 201 P.3d 930 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“The state argues that the trial court erred in (1) finding that the state had committed discovery violations under ORS 419B.881, (2) precluding the admission of evidence as sanctions for those alleged violations, and (3) dismissing the state’s petitions with prejudice.”
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. v. GAK, 201 P.3d 930 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“The state argues that the trial court erred in (1) finding that the state had committed discovery violations under ORS 419B.881, (2) precluding the admission of evidence as sanctions for those alleged violations, and (3) dismissing the state's petitions with prejudice.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.881(1)(b) — 2 cases
State ex rel. Juv. Dep't v. G. A. K., 201 P.3d 930 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“The state argues that the trial court erred in (1) finding that the state had committed discovery violations under ORS 419B.881, (2) precluding the admission of evidence as sanctions for those alleged violations, and (3) dismissing the state’s petitions with prejudice.”
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. v. GAK, 201 P.3d 930 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“The state argues that the trial court erred in (1) finding that the state had committed discovery violations under ORS 419B.881, (2) precluding the admission of evidence as sanctions for those alleged violations, and (3) dismissing the state's petitions with prejudice.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.881(1)(c) — 3 cases
State ex rel. Juv. Dep't v. G. A. K., 201 P.3d 930 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“The state argues that the trial court erred in (1) finding that the state had committed discovery violations under ORS 419B.881, (2) precluding the admission of evidence as sanctions for those alleged violations, and (3) dismissing the state’s petitions with prejudice.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. R. A. B. (In re G. D.-J.), 429 P.3d 426 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“" Children's counsel argued that mother was violating ORS 419B.881 as of October 23, 2017, by not providing information as to the content or length of any witness's testimony with the exception of one draft report from a "professional witness.”
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. v. GAK, 201 P.3d 930 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“The state argues that the trial court erred in (1) finding that the state had committed discovery violations under ORS 419B.881, (2) precluding the admission of evidence as sanctions for those alleged violations, and (3) dismissing the state's petitions with prejudice.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.881(1)(d) — 2 cases
State ex rel. Juv. Dep't v. G. A. K., 201 P.3d 930 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“The state argues that the trial court erred in (1) finding that the state had committed discovery violations under ORS 419B.881, (2) precluding the admission of evidence as sanctions for those alleged violations, and (3) dismissing the state’s petitions with prejudice.”
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. v. GAK, 201 P.3d 930 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“The state argues that the trial court erred in (1) finding that the state had committed discovery violations under ORS 419B.881, (2) precluding the admission of evidence as sanctions for those alleged violations, and (3) dismissing the state's petitions with prejudice.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.881(10) — 1 case
Dep't of Human Servs. v. R. A. B. (In re G. D.-J.), 429 P.3d 426 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“" Children's counsel argued that mother was violating ORS 419B.881 as of October 23, 2017, by not providing information as to the content or length of any witness's testimony with the exception of one draft report from a "professional witness.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.881(2)(a)(A) — 2 cases
State ex rel. Juv. Dep't v. G. A. K., 201 P.3d 930 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“The state argues that the trial court erred in (1) finding that the state had committed discovery violations under ORS 419B.881, (2) precluding the admission of evidence as sanctions for those alleged violations, and (3) dismissing the state’s petitions with prejudice.”
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. v. GAK, 201 P.3d 930 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“The state argues that the trial court erred in (1) finding that the state had committed discovery violations under ORS 419B.881, (2) precluding the admission of evidence as sanctions for those alleged violations, and (3) dismissing the state's petitions with prejudice.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.881(2)(b) — 3 cases
State ex rel. Juv. Dep't v. G. A. K., 201 P.3d 930 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“The state argues that the trial court erred in (1) finding that the state had committed discovery violations under ORS 419B.881, (2) precluding the admission of evidence as sanctions for those alleged violations, and (3) dismissing the state’s petitions with prejudice.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. R. A. B. (In re G. D.-J.), 429 P.3d 426 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“" Children's counsel argued that mother was violating ORS 419B.881 as of October 23, 2017, by not providing information as to the content or length of any witness's testimony with the exception of one draft report from a "professional witness.”
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. v. GAK, 201 P.3d 930 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“The state argues that the trial court erred in (1) finding that the state had committed discovery violations under ORS 419B.881, (2) precluding the admission of evidence as sanctions for those alleged violations, and (3) dismissing the state's petitions with prejudice.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.881(3) — 3 cases
Dept. of Human Servs. v. R. O., 504 P.3d 674 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“The parents contend that (1) the court erred in determining that there was legally sufficient evidence to find “good cause,” and (2) even if there was good cause, the court abused its discretion in relieving DHS of its obliga- tion under ORS 419B.881(3) to provide their child’s…”
State ex rel. Juv. Dep't v. G. A. K., 201 P.3d 930 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“The state argues that the trial court erred in (1) finding that the state had committed discovery violations under ORS 419B.881, (2) precluding the admission of evidence as sanctions for those alleged violations, and (3) dismissing the state’s petitions with prejudice.”
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. v. GAK, 201 P.3d 930 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“The state argues that the trial court erred in (1) finding that the state had committed discovery violations under ORS 419B.881, (2) precluding the admission of evidence as sanctions for those alleged violations, and (3) dismissing the state's petitions with prejudice.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.881(5) — 2 cases
State ex rel. Juv. Dep't v. G. A. K., 201 P.3d 930 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“The state argues that the trial court erred in (1) finding that the state had committed discovery violations under ORS 419B.881, (2) precluding the admission of evidence as sanctions for those alleged violations, and (3) dismissing the state’s petitions with prejudice.”
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. v. GAK, 201 P.3d 930 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“The state argues that the trial court erred in (1) finding that the state had committed discovery violations under ORS 419B.881, (2) precluding the admission of evidence as sanctions for those alleged violations, and (3) dismissing the state's petitions with prejudice.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.881(6) — 3 cases
Dept. of Human Servs. v. R. O., 504 P.3d 674 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“The parents contend that (1) the court erred in determining that there was legally sufficient evidence to find “good cause,” and (2) even if there was good cause, the court abused its discretion in relieving DHS of its obliga- tion under ORS 419B.881(3) to provide their child’s…”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. J. S. C., 336 Or. App. 373 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“In this juvenile dependency case, mother appeals the juvenile court’s order denying her motion to bar the Department of Human Services’ (DHS) disclosure of her psychological evaluation to father pursuant to former ORS 419B.881(6) (2021).1 Mother and the children contend that the…”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. R. A. B. (In re G. D.-J.), 429 P.3d 426 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“" Children's counsel argued that mother was violating ORS 419B.881 as of October 23, 2017, by not providing information as to the content or length of any witness's testimony with the exception of one draft report from a "professional witness.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.881(7) — 1 case
Dept. of Human Servs. v. J. S. C., 336 Or. App. 373 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“In this juvenile dependency case, mother appeals the juvenile court’s order denying her motion to bar the Department of Human Services’ (DHS) disclosure of her psychological evaluation to father pursuant to former ORS 419B.881(6) (2021).1 Mother and the children contend that the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.881(9) — 3 cases
State ex rel. Juv. Dep't v. G. A. K., 201 P.3d 930 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“The state argues that the trial court erred in (1) finding that the state had committed discovery violations under ORS 419B.881, (2) precluding the admission of evidence as sanctions for those alleged violations, and (3) dismissing the state’s petitions with prejudice.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. R. O., 504 P.3d 674 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“The parents contend that (1) the court erred in determining that there was legally sufficient evidence to find “good cause,” and (2) even if there was good cause, the court abused its discretion in relieving DHS of its obliga- tion under ORS 419B.881(3) to provide their child’s…”
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. v. GAK, 201 P.3d 930 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“The state argues that the trial court erred in (1) finding that the state had committed discovery violations under ORS 419B.881, (2) precluding the admission of evidence as sanctions for those alleged violations, and (3) dismissing the state's petitions with prejudice.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.881(9)(c) — 2 cases
State ex rel. Juv. Dep't v. G. A. K., 201 P.3d 930 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“The state argues that the trial court erred in (1) finding that the state had committed discovery violations under ORS 419B.881, (2) precluding the admission of evidence as sanctions for those alleged violations, and (3) dismissing the state’s petitions with prejudice.”
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. v. GAK, 201 P.3d 930 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“The state argues that the trial court erred in (1) finding that the state had committed discovery violations under ORS 419B.881, (2) precluding the admission of evidence as sanctions for those alleged violations, and (3) dismissing the state's petitions with prejudice.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.