State v. L. B. T.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED: April 25, 2012 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of A. T., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. L. B. T., Appellant. Coos County Circuit Court 06JV0083 Petition Number 022211AT A149908 (Control) ____________________________________________________________________ In the Matter of A. C. T., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. L. B. T., Appellant. Coos County Circuit Court 06JV0083 Petition Number 022211AT A150490 Richard L. Barron, Judge. Submitted on March 28, 2012. Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Holly Telerant, Deputy Public Defender, Appellate Division, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Jeff J. Payne, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Sercombe, Judge, and Hadlock, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded. 1 PER CURIAM 2 In this dependency case, mother appeals a judgment changing the 3 permanency plan for her child from reunification to adoption. She contends that the 4 juvenile court erred in failing to "include on the face of the judgment its determination of 5 whether there was any reason under ORS 419B.498(2) to defer the filing of a petition to 6 terminate mother's parental rights, as required by ORS 419B.476(5)(d)." The state 7 concedes that the permanency judgment does not include the findings required pursuant 8 to ORS 419B.476(5)(d) and that the case must, therefore, be reversed and remanded. See 9 State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. J. F. B., 230 Or App 106, 115, 214 P3d 827 (2009) (permanency 10 judgments that failed to include statutorily required findings were defective on their 11 face); State ex rel DHS v. M. A., 227 Or App 172, 181-82, 205 P3d 36 (2009) (reversing 12 and remanding permanency judgments that did not include required findings). We agree 13 and accept the state's concession.1 14 Reversed and remanded. 1 Because we accept the state's concession and reverse and remand with respect to mother's fourth assignment of error, we do not address her remaining assignments of error. 1
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
