Case ID: or-app_75/html/0322-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued and submitted May 3,
    affirmed as modified September 18, 1985
    In the Matter of Ester Schroeder, a Child. STATE ex rel JUVENILE DEPARTMENT OF MARION COUNTY, Respondent, v. SCHROEDER, Appellant.
    
    (24,880; CA A33352)
    706 P2d 558
    Stephen E. A. Sanders, Certified Law Student, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was John W. Jensen, Salem.
    Douglas F. Zier, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and James E. Mountain, Jr., Solicitor General, Salem.
    Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Warden and Newman, Judges.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

Defendant, a juvenile, was committed to the custody of Children’s Services Division for placement in a juvenile training school. After she was paroled, the juvenile court entered an order requiring her to pay restitution. We decided in State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Lessaos, 64 Or App 626, 669 P2d 339 (1983), and State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Kreinbring, 64 Or App 630, 669 P2d 340 (1983), that, under ORS 419.507(1)(a), which authorizes the juvenile court to impose restitution as a condition of probation, the court may not order restitution when it has committed the defendant to a juvenile training school, because a commitment is not probation. Those decisions are controlling.

Order modified by deleting requirement of restitution; affirmed as modified.