Case ID: or-app_285/html/0503-01.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

Submitted April 5,
    appeal dismissed May 10,
    petition for review allowed September 14, 2017 (361 Or 885)
    In the Matter of A. B. B., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. T. J. D. J., Appellant. In the Matter of A. B. B., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. T. J. D. J., Appellant. In the Matter of A. B. B., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. T. J. D. J., Appellant.
    
    Marion County Circuit Court
    Marion County Circuit Court
    Marion County Circuit Court
    J140737; A163536 (Control)
    J140784; A163537
    15JU00035; A163538
    393 P3d 1207
    
      Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Valerie Colas, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
    Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Erin K. Galli, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
    Before Egan, Presiding Judge, and Lagesen, Judge, and Linder, Senior Judge.
   PER CURIAM

Father appeals review judgments under ORS 419B.449 in juvenile dependency proceedings that are subject to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). He assigns error to the juvenile court’s determination in those judgments that DHS has made “active efforts” to return his child to the care of her family. See ORS 419B.340(1) (requiring juvenile court to assess whether DHS has made “active efforts” to permit a child to stay in, or return to, child’s home in certain orders in dependency cases subject to ICWA). In Dept. of Human Services v. A. B. B., 285 Or App 409, 396 P3d 306 (2017), decided today, we dismissed an appeal by child from the same judgments, concluding that, under State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Vockrodt, 147 Or App 4, 8, 934 P2d 620 (1997), child’s rights were not sufficiently affected by the judgments to render them appealable under ORS 419A.200(1). For substantially the same reasons as those we articulated in A. B. B., we conclude that the judgments are not appealable by father.

Appeal dismissed.