No. 67 January 29, 2025 585

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. M. M., Appellant.

Coos County Circuit Court 24JU02081 A184942 (Control) In the Matter of L. L. M., a Child.

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. M. M., Appellant.

Coos County Circuit Court 24JU02082; A184943 In the Matter of E. L. M., a Child.

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. M. M., Appellant.

Coos County Circuit Court 24JU02083; A184944 586 Dept. of Human Services v. M. M.

In the Matter of A. D. M., a Child.

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. M. M., Appellant.

Coos County Circuit Court 24JU02084; A184945, A184942 Matthew P. Muenchrath, Judge.

Submitted December 13, 2024.

G. Aron Perez-Selsky filed the brief for appellant.

Inge D. Wells, Assistant Attorney General, waived appear- ance for respondent.

Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.

EGAN, J.

Affirmed.

Nonprecedential Memo Op: 337 Or App 585 (2025) 587 EGAN, J.

In this consolidated appeal, father challenges a judgment denying his motion to set aside a jurisdictional judgment concerning his four children. Father’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to ORAP 5.90(4) and State v. Balfour, 311 Or 434, 814 P2d 1069 (1991). The brief does not contain a Section B. See ORAP 5.90(1)(b). We affirm.1 In April 2024, the Department of Human Services (DHS) filed petitions for jurisdiction concerning father’s four children. Father appeared for a shelter hearing and a settle- ment conference, but he failed to appear for trial. The juve- nile court allowed DHS to proceed with a prima facie case.

The children’s mother entered admissions and the juvenile court found the four children to be within its jurisdiction.

Father’s trial attorney filed a motion to set aside the judg- ment of jurisdiction based on excusable neglect, but father failed to appear for the hearing on the motion. The juve- nile court denied the motion. Having reviewed the record, including the juvenile court file, the transcript of the hear- ings, and the Balfour brief, we have identified no arguably meritorious issues.

Affirmed.

As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge panel. See, e.g., State v. Yother, 310 Or App 563, 484 P3d 1098 (2021) (deciding matter submitted through Balfour process by two-judge panel); Ballinger v. Nooth, 254 Or App 402, 295 P3d 115 (2012), rev den, 353 Or 747 (2013) (same).