- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Juvenile Law
- Date Filed: 09-13-2017
- Case #: A163309
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Duncan, J. for the Court; DeVore, P.J.; & Garrett, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Father appealed the juvenile court’s judgment that changed the permanency plan from reunification to adoption. Father assigned error to the juvenile court’s reliance on “facts extrinsic to the proven basis for jurisdiction,” as grounds for making the permanency plan change under ORS 419B.476(2)(a). On appeal, Father argued the juvenile court could not rely on evidence relating to his purported estrangement from Daughter because those facts were “never alleged and proven as a basis for jurisdiction.” A juvenile court must make permanency plan determinations under ORS 419B.476(2)(a), in accordance with the bases of the court’s initial jurisdiction that are “expressly stated or fairly implied.” Dept. of Human Services v. N.T., 247 Or App 706, 715-16 (2012). The Court of Appeals determined that the juvenile court erred in changing the permanency plan by relying on evidence relating to the purported estrangement between Father and Daughter, because the original jurisdictional judgment expressly identified Father’s substance abuse as the sole basis for the juvenile court’s jurisdiction over Daughter. Reversed and remanded.