Oregon Appellate Ct - Nov 30, 2016
by: Sara Werboff • December 5, 2016 • no comments
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
* | * | ||
*Per Curiam - Civil Commitment - Insufficient Evidence | *Per Curiam - Civil Commitment - Insufficient Evidence | ||
| − | * | + | *Per Curiam - Juvenile Dependency - Dependency Proceeding Not a Foster Care Placement for Purposes of ICWA |
*Per Curiam - Hearsay Inadmissible as Prior Consistent Statement | *Per Curiam - Hearsay Inadmissible as Prior Consistent Statement | ||
</summary> | </summary> | ||
| Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
| − | Per Curiam - Juvenile Dependency - | + | '''Per Curiam - Juvenile Dependency - Dependency Proceeding Not a Foster Care Placement for Purposes of ICWA''' |
| − | The court rejects father's challenge to a juvenile dependency determination. The juvenile court asserted jurisdiction over father's child first in 2015 and again in 2016. Father challenges the 2016 judgment, arguing that DHS failed to present expert testimony required under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) that custody of the child by father was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage. DHS argues on appeal that because the proceeding was not a foster care placement, father was required to preserve his claim and DHS was not required to present expert testimony. The court agrees with DHS that it was not a | + | The court rejects father's challenge to a juvenile dependency determination. The juvenile court asserted jurisdiction over father's child first in 2015 and again in 2016. Father challenges the 2016 judgment, arguing that DHS failed to present expert testimony required under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) that custody of the child by father was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage. DHS argues on appeal that because the proceeding was not a foster care placement, father was required to preserve his claim and DHS was not required to present expert testimony. The court agrees with DHS that it was not a foster care placement proceeding since the child already had been found to be under the juvenile court's jurisdiction. |
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A162204.pdf DHS v. J.C.S.], 282 Or App 624 (2016) (Per Curiam) | [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A162204.pdf DHS v. J.C.S.], 282 Or App 624 (2016) (Per Curiam) | ||
Revision as of 22:04, December 5, 2016
State v. Nelson, 282 Or App 427 (2016) (Ortega, P.J.)
State v. Lockridge, 282 Or App 414 (2016) (Hadlock, C.J.)
DHS v. K.C., 282 Or App 448 (2016) (Ortega, P.J.)
State v. J.J.-M., 282 Or App 459 (2016) (Sercombe, P.J.)
State v. Macias, 282 Or App 473 (2016) (Sercombe, P.J.)
DHS v. B.J.J., 282 Or App 488 (2016) (Duncan, P.J.)
DHS v. L.D.K., 282 Or App 510 (2016) (Duncan, P.J.)
Boyles v. Myrick, 282 Or App 517 (2016) (Lagesen, J.)
State v. Arreola, 282 Or App 555 (2016) (Tookey, J.)
State v. Eastman, 282 Or App 563 (2016) (Garrett, J.)
State v. Almarez-Martinez, 282 Or App 576 (2016) (Flynn, J.)
State v. Pobor, 282 Or App 600 (2016) (DeHoog, J.)
State v. Potter, 282 Or App 605 (2016) (De Muniz, S.J.)
State v. Westcott, 282 Or App 614 (2016) (Schuman, S.J.)
Per Curiam - Civil Commitment - Insufficient Evidence
The court accepts the state's concession that there was legally insufficient evidence to support appellant's civil commitment.
State v. W.C.A., 282 Or App 622 (2016) (Per Curiam)
Per Curiam - Juvenile Dependency - Dependency Proceeding Not a Foster Care Placement for Purposes of ICWA
The court rejects father's challenge to a juvenile dependency determination. The juvenile court asserted jurisdiction over father's child first in 2015 and again in 2016. Father challenges the 2016 judgment, arguing that DHS failed to present expert testimony required under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) that custody of the child by father was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage. DHS argues on appeal that because the proceeding was not a foster care placement, father was required to preserve his claim and DHS was not required to present expert testimony. The court agrees with DHS that it was not a foster care placement proceeding since the child already had been found to be under the juvenile court's jurisdiction.
DHS v. J.C.S., 282 Or App 624 (2016) (Per Curiam)
Per Curiam - Hearsay Inadmissible as Prior Consistent Statement
The court holds that an officer's testimony conveying a hearsay statement from the complainant that he did not know the defendant was inadmissible as a prior consistent statement. Defendant was convicted of theft for taking the complainant's video poker cash credit. Defendant said that she was having an affair with the complainant and he gave the voucher to her. The complainant testified that he had seen defendant around, but otherwise didn't know her. A police officer testified that the complainant told him that he did not know the defendant. The court concludes that the officer's hearsay statement was not admissible as a prior consistent statement because the statement was not made before the complainant had a motive to fabricate and the error was not harmless.
State v. Hernandez, 282 Or App 627 (2016) (Per Curiam)
