188 December 26, 2024 No. 958 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of L. E., a Child.

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. L. E., Appellant.

Douglas County Circuit Court 21JU02959; A184102 (Control) In the Matter of A. E., a Child.

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. A. E., Appellant.

Douglas County Circuit Court 22JU04101; A184103 Ann Marie Simmons, Judge.

Argued and submitted October 15, 2024; on respondent’s motion to dismiss filed September 9, 2024; appellant’s response filed September 19, 2024, and respondent’s reply filed September 20, 2024.

Ginger Fitch argued the cause for appellant. Also on the briefs was Youth, Rights & Justice.

Inge D. Wells, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.

Nonprecedential Memo Op: 337 Or App 188 (2024) 189 Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Kamins, Judge, and Kistler, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM Appeal dismissed as moot.

190 Dept. of Human Services v. L. E.

PER CURIAM Children in this dependency case have been within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court since November 2022, based on allegations that they suffered unexplained injuries while in the care of their parents. Children filed a motion in the juvenile court seeking to have the court require the Department of Human Services (DHS) to amend the depen- dency petitions “to allege in essence: Mother has mental or emotional condition that puts Children at risk.” They appeal from the trial court’s denial of that motion. In a sin- gle assignment of error, the children contend that the trial court erred or abused its discretion in denying the motion.

On September 6, 2024, DHS filed second petitions alleging that mother’s “mental health interferes with her ability to safely parent” the children. Thus, a decision by this court directing the requested amendment would have no practical effect on the children’s rights. We therefore dis- miss the appeal as moot.

Appeal dismissed as moot.