Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the adoption. In accordance with Oregon law, CSD did not offer the Mullinses a hearing on its decision to oppose the adoption. See Oreg.Admin.Rule 412-30-036(2). Nor did CSD give the Mullinses a f inses’ adoption petition on July 13, 1994. See Klamath County Juvenile Court June 20, 1994, Letter Opinion at 2 (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction). The Mullinses had no statutory right of appeal. See In re Adoption of Greybull, 565 P.2d at 774-75. Although the Mullinses could not have appealed the juvenile court’s dismissal of their adoption petition, they could have challenged CSD’s withholding of consent under Oregon’s Administrative Procedures Act. See Oreg.Rev.Stat. § 183.484; see also Adams v. Oregon State Children’s Services Div., 131 Or.App. 396, 886 P.2d 19, 22-25 (1994) (in banc) (<HOLDING>), rev. denied by 321 Or. 137, 894 P.2d 468 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a refusal to sign an implied consent form is not a refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test for purposes of section 1547 (B) holding that refusal to consent to search cannot support a finding of reasonable suspicion (C) holding that prospective adoptive parents may challenge to csds refusal to consent under the act (D) holding that child cannot consent to search of parents bedroom (E) holding retroactive application of the act to prosecution that was pending before the effective date of the act was precluded because the act is prospective
Output (English): holding retroactive application of the act to prosecution that was pending before the effective date of the act was precluded because the act is prospective