Chapter 419A
419A.004
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Provision in definition of “Indian child” referring to persons covered by terms of Indian Child Welfare Act agreement does not allow agreement to encompass person other than “Indian child” as defined in Act. State ex rel State Office for Services to Children and Families v. Klamath Tribe, 170 Or App 106, 11 P3d 701 (2000)
Definition of “youth offender” as amended in 2001 applies only for offenses committed on or after effective date of amendment. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Strothers, 195 Or App 372, 97 P3d 1276 (2004)
419A.010
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Under former similar statute
Personnel serving at pleasure of appointing authority are not subject to termination protections applicable to classified employees. Fritz v. Norblad, 566 F. Supp. 1459 (1983)
419A.150
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Under former similar statute
No particular qualitative or quantitative level of procedural participation is required to qualify as person appearing on child’s behalf for purposes of requesting rehearing. State ex rel Children’s Services Div. v. Dolan, 47 Or App 401, 614 P2d 614 (1980)
At rehearing, juvenile court judge is not bound by interlocutory order of referee. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. M, 62 Or 785, 662 P2d 733 (1983)
Child has no right to initial hearing before referee. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Arevalo, 117 Or App 505, 844 P2d 928 (1992), Sup Ct review denied
Child was not prejudiced when informed just before hearing that judge, rather than referee, would hear case. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Arevalo, 117 Or App 505, 844 P2d 928 (1992), Sup Ct review denied
In general
Where mother failed to appear before referee at pretrial conference, this section does not bar mother from presenting evidence at rehearing. Dept. of Human Services v. J. R. D., 286 Or App 55, 398 P3d 489 (2017)
Party at rehearing before juvenile court of referee’s decision is permitted to present additional evidence during that rehearing, which is rehearing of matter before referee as if it had been originally commenced before juvenile court. Dept. of Human Services v. J. R. D., 286 Or App 55, 398 P3d 489 (2017)
419A.170
NOTE: Repealed as of May 1, 2012
See annotations under ORS 419B.112.
419A.190
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Prohibition against adult court action “based on” or “arising out of” juvenile offense bars use of offense as incident of racketeering activity for purposes of Oregon Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (ORS 166.715 to 166.735). State v. Harris, 157 Or App 119, 967 P2d 909 (1998)
Juvenile court probation violation hearing is considered adjudicatory hearing for purpose of determining whether to bar proceedings in adult criminal court or other juvenile court adjudicatory proceedings. State v. S.-Q.K., 292 Or App 836, 426 P3d 659 (2018); M.B. v. M.B., 293 Or App 122, 427 P3d 1121 (2018)
419A.200
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Under former similar statute
Grandparents do not have standing to appeal from the disposition of a termination of parentage proceeding. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Hayes, 16 Or App 438, 519 P2d 104 (1974)
State is not authorized to appeal from order tantamount to judgment of acquittal in proceeding where juvenile was tried for commission of criminal act. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Knox, 20 Or App 455, 532 P2d 245 (1975)
It is not necessary as a matter of due process that, for the protection of the children’s interests, a parent’s right to appeal from an order terminating parental rights be foreclosed for failure to serve notice of appeal on children. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. of Multnomah County v. Navarette, 29 Or App 121, 563 P2d 1221 (1977)
Appeals from juvenile court are reviewed de novo, with findings of juvenile court given no weight except on matters of credibility of witnesses. State ex rel Juvenile Department v. Kent, 31 Or App 1219, 572 P2d 1059 (1977), Sup Ct review denied
Because an order denying remand does not end juvenile court jurisdiction it is not appealable. State ex rel Juvenile Department v. Brown, 33 Or App 423, 576 P2d 830 (1978)
Where order resulting from October review proceeding set by court on motion as part of continuing supervision of initial wardship assumed in May merely continued existing placement under wardship and made no new or additional disposition, October order was not appealable order. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Nagle, 36 Or App 237, 584 P2d 338 (1978)
Action appealed from denominated as order and disposing of petition duly filed and directing certain things be done which terminated mother’s parental rights was final and appealable order. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. East, 38 Or App 59, 589 P2d 744 (1979), Sup Ct review denied
In juvenile proceeding in which child was accused of murdering his sister, where juvenile court allowed motion to suppress results of luminol test and child’s statements to authorities, appellate court had no jurisdiction to hear state’s appeal of suppression order. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Leroy, 45 Or App 65, 607 P2d 772 (1980), Sup Ct review denied
State does not have right to appeal pretrial suppression order in juvenile case. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Gates, 46 Or App 587, 612 P2d 734 (1980), Sup Ct review denied
“Informal” notice requires only that juvenile court actually be apprised of child’s desire to appeal. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Hardy, 93 Or App 584, 763 P2d 406 (1988), Sup Ct review denied
Person with physical custody of child has standing to appeal trial court order giving legal custody to someone else, provided person participated in dispositional hearing below. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Crenshaw, 103 Or App 359, 797 P2d 397 (1990)
Subsection enumerating specific types of order subject to
appeal by state supersedes subsection providing general right of appeal from final orders by persons adversely affected. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. M. T., 321 Or 419, 899 P2d 1192 (1995)
In general
Youth asserting inadequate assistance of appellate counsel due to untimely filing of appeal must show that delayed notice of appeal was filed within reasonable time. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Balderas, 172 Or App 223, 18 P3d 434 (2001)
Where state has sought finding of jurisdiction based on particular factual allegation, duties of state are “adversely affected” by denial of jurisdiction on alleged basis regardless of whether court establishes jurisdiction on other basis. State ex rel State Office for Services to Children and Families v. Imus, 179 Or App 33, 39 P3d 213 (2002)
Order denying request to modify conditions of placement previously imposed by court is not appealable. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Ortiz, 187 Or App 116, 65 P3d 1118 (2003)
“Colorable claim of error” means claim that party may reasonably assert under current law and that is plausible given facts and given current law or reasonable extension or modification of current law. State ex rel Dept. of Human Services v. Rardin, 338 Or 399, 110 P3d 580 (2005)
Denial of petition for affirmative relief adversely affects rights and duties of petitioner. State ex rel Dept. of Human Services v. S.P.B., 218 Or App 97, 178 P3d 307 (2008)
Jurisdictional order and dispositional judgment in juvenile court proceedings are separately appealable, and requirements for filing appeal apply to both order and judgment separately. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. J. H.-O., 223 Or App 412, 196 P3d 36 (2008)
Time limitations on filing notice of appeal under this section are not facially violative of Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment to United States Constitution. Department of Human Services v. W.S.C., 248 Or App 374, 273 P3d 313 (2012), Sup Ct review denied
The phrase “affected by a judgment of the juvenile court” is not limited solely to judgements described in ORS 419A.205 (1). Dept. of Human Services v. C.M.H., 301 Or App 487, 455 P3d 576 (2019), aff’d 368 Or 96, 486 P3d 772 (2021)
419A.205
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Judgment described in this section must comply with ORS chapter 18 requirements for judgment. State ex rel Juvenile Department v. J.W., 345 Or 292, 193 P3d 20 (2008)
Listing of dispositions denominated as judgments for purposes of appeal is not exclusive and does not exclude judgments authorized elsewhere in juvenile code. Dept. of Human Services v. C.M.H., 301 Or App 487, 455 P3d 576 (2019), aff’d 368 Or 96, 486 P3d 772 (2021)
419A.255
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Under former similar statute
In view of the confidential nature of the juvenile casework file, the trial court should have gone through the file and made available pertinent parts of it for defense (opposing) counsel to use in cross-examination. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. La Mar, 7 Or App 132, 490 P2d 191 (1971)
A juvenile witness may not be impeached by evidence that he admitted acts which would be a crime if committed by an adult. State v. Burr, 18 Or App 494, 525 P2d 1067 (1974)
Files relating to parent’s treatment of other children are not absolutely inadmissible in proceeding terminating parental rights. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Kramer, 34 Or App 1013, 580 P2d 211 (1978)
Defendant charged with arson was denied right of confrontation where trial court prevented defense from questioning alleged accomplices about burglaries which they had admitted in prior juvenile proceedings, because defendant’s need to cross-examine principal witnesses to show possible bias outweighed state’s need to maintain confidentiality of juvenile records. Burr v. Sullivan, 618 F2d 583 (1980)
In general
Juvenile court may order agency to provide adoptive home studies to attorney of dependent child prior to agency issuance of placement report. State ex rel State Office for Services to Children and Families v. Williams, 168 Or App 538, 7 P3d 655 (2000)
Where suitable adoptive placement is sought for child, court has discretion to order disclosure to court appointed special advocate of home study information submitted to adoption committee for consideration. State ex rel State Office for Services to Children and Families v. Mitchell, 182 Or App 402, 49 P3d 838 (2002), Sup Ct review denied
Where child is no longer candidate for adoption, court may not order disclosure of adoption home studies to child’s attorney or court appointed special advocate. State ex rel State Office for Services to Children and Families v. Morgan, 183 Or App 140, 51 P3d 637 (2002)
Where defendant is circuit court judge who denies plaintiff’s public records request under this section, Article VII (Original), section 9, of Oregon Constitution, prohibits another circuit court judge from reviewing denial of public records request. Oregonian Publishing Co., LLC v. Waller, 253 Or App 123, 293 P3d 1046 (2012), Sup Ct review denied
“History and prognosis” materials located in either supplemental confidential file or record of case, and duplicates located elsewhere, are privileged. Dept. of Human Services v. E.J., 316 Or App 537, 504 P3d 1262 (2021), Sup Ct review allowed
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS
Under former similar statute
Access to police reports and records on juveniles by Oregon Law Enforcement Council, (1974) Vol 36, p 782; constitutionality of provisions that juvenile court proceedings and records may be closed to public, (1977) Vol 38, p 1504; release by police officer of juvenile’s name at time of arrest, (1981) Vol 42, p 17
419A.260
NOTES OF DECISIONS
ORS 419C.610 allows court to set aside order finding youth within jurisdiction of court notwithstanding that underlying conduct is type for which this section prohibits expungement of record. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Tyree, 177 Or App 187, 33 P3d 729 (2001)
Youth previously found to be within jurisdiction of court for conduct constituting one of specified offenses, whose jurisdictional judgment was set aside, is not eligible for expunction of records. State v. P. T., 295 Or App 205, 433 P3d 778 (2018), Sup Ct review denied
419A.262
NOTES OF DECISIONS
“Release” refers to making records available to others in disregard of confidential status. In re Gustafson, 333 Or 468, 41 P3d 1063 (2002)