In this dependency case, mother appeals from a judgment changing the permanency plan for her child from reunification to adoption. She contends that the “juvenile court erred in failing to make and include in the permanency judgment a ‘compelling reasons’ determination, as required by ORS 419B.476(5)(d).” The state concedes that the permanency judgment failed to include the findings required pursuant to ORS 419B.476(5)(d) and that the case must, therefore, be reversed and remanded. See State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. J. F. B., 230 Or App 106, 114-15, 214 P3d 827 (2009) (permanency judgment that failed to include statutorily required findings was defective on its face); State ex rel DHS v. M. A., 227 Or App 172, 183-84, 205 P3d 36 (2009) (where permanency judgments fail to comply with statutory requirements, they must be reversed and remanded). We agree and accept the state’s concession. 1

Reversed and remanded.