Case Name: In the Matter of E. R. F. C., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. M. C., Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2017-08-16
Citations: 287 Or. App. 310
Docket Number: 150350J; Petition Number 150350J01; A164251
Parties: In the Matter of E. R. F. C., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. M. C., Appellant.
Judges: Before Egan, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Wollheim, Senior Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 287
Pages: 310–311

Head Matter:
Submitted July 12,
reversed August 16, 2017
In the Matter of E. R. F. C., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. M. C., Appellant.
Clackamas County Circuit Court
150350J; Petition Number 150350J01; A164251
399 P3d 1097
Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Christopher A. Perdue, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Egan, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Wollheim, Senior Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Mother appeals a juvenile court judgment denying her motion to dismiss jurisdiction and terminate the wardship over her child and changing the permanency plan for her child from reunification to adoption. On appeal, mother raises four assignments of error. We write only to address mother's first assignment, in which she contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion to dismiss jurisdiction and terminate the wardship. Specifically, mother asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support continued jurisdiction in this case. The state, for its part, concedes that the juvenile court erred in denying mother's motion to dismiss jurisdiction and terminate the wardship. We agree with the parties that the evidence was insufficient to support continued jurisdiction and accept the state's concession. Accordingly, the juvenile court's judgment must be reversed.
Reversed.
In her second, third, and fourth assignments, mother challenges the juvenile court's decision to change the permanency plan from reunification to adoption. In light of our resolution of mother's first assignment of error, which is dis-positive, we do not consider mother's remaining contentions.