A Book from the Library of Defense
Namespaces
Variants
Actions

Library Collections

Webinars & Podcasts
Motions
Disclaimer

Oregon Appellate Ct - June 25, 2014

From OCDLA Library of Defense
Jump to: navigation, search

by: Abassos, Evan Ottaviani and Katie Watson • June 25, 2014 • no comments

A Juvenile Court Can Change Its Permanency Plan Based On Findings that Can “Fairly Be Implied” from the Original Allegations.

A juvenile court can change its permanency plan based on new allegations, if the new allegations can “fairly be implied” from the original allegations that formed the basis for its jurisdictional judgment. Here, DHS filed a second dependency petition, alleging that the children were within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court because the mother suffered from mental illness. The juvenile court entered judgments assuming jurisdiction over the children based on the new allegation, and it determined that the permanency plan should be changed from reunification to adoption, due in part to the mother’s mental health problems. Mother’s mental health problems could “fairly be implied” from the allegations of impulsivity and lack of motivation to safely parent her children in the original jurisdictional judgment. Thus, the original documents sufficed to put the mother on notice that she needed to address her underlying mental health problems to regain custody of her children. Affirmed. Department of Human Services v. R.B. Department of Human Services v. R.B., 263 Or App ___ (2014).

DUII- Consent Following Reading of DMV Implied Consent Form is Not Involuntary

Consent to a breath or urine test is not involuntary merely because it follows an officer’s reading of information about defendant’s rights and consequences of refusal. Here, officers at the jail read defendant the DMV Implied Consent Rights and Consequences Section 1, and defendant consented to a breath test. Defendant tested 0.0, was read Section 2 of the DMV Consequences, and agreed to provide a urine sample. The reading of the DMV implied consent form informed defendant of the “lawful consequences of refusing to submit”. Accurate advice about legal consequences does not render consent unlawful. See State v Moore II, 354 Or 835 (2014). Reversed and remanded. State v. Geren, 263 Or App ___ (2014).