Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2023

Dept. of Human Services v. T. F.

Dept. of Human Services v. T. F.
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Decided September 20, 2023 · Lagesen
328 Or. App. 244

Dept. of Human Services v. T. F.

Opinion

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

Submitted August 15, affirmed September 20, 2023, petition for review denied January 12, 2024 (371 Or 825)

In the Matter of L. F., a Child.

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, and L. F., Respondent, v. T. F., Appellant.

Columbia County Circuit Court 21JU01883; A180786

Michael T. Clarke, Judge.

Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Kyle Sessions, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Kristen G. Williams filed the brief for respondent child.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Philip Thoennes, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent Department of Human Services.

Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Hellman, Judge, and Armstrong, Senior Judge.

LAGESEN, C. J.

Affirmed.

Nonprecedential Memo Op: 328 Or App 244 (2023) 245 LAGESEN, C. J.

In this dependency case, father appeals a judgment that added six additional bases for dependency jurisdiction over his son. He assigns error to the juvenile court’s deter- mination that dependency jurisdiction was warranted on any of the additional bases. Father’s assignments of error are not preserved, and the alleged errors are not plain. We therefore affirm. See Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376, 381-82, 823 P2d 956 (1991) (holding that appellate court has discretion to correct unpreserved error only if the error is plain).

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.