Case Name: In the Matter of B. L. O. and J. L. R., Children. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. B. L. P., aka B. L. R., Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2012-03-14
Citations: 248 Or. App. 744
Docket Number: 0900279, 0900280; Petition Number 10JU245TPR; A149583
Parties: In the Matter of B. L. O. and J. L. R., Children. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. B. L. P., aka B. L. R., Appellant.
Judges: Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Duncan, Judge, and Rasmussen, Judge pro tempore.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 248
Pages: 744–745

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted February 8,
affirmed March 14,
petition for review denied May 17, 2012 (352 Or 33)
In the Matter of B. L. O. and J. L. R., Children. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. B. L. P., aka B. L. R., Appellant.
Douglas County Circuit Court
0900279, 0900280; Petition Number 10JU245TPR; A149583
273 P3d 375
Megan L. Jacquot argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
Laura S. Anderson, Senior Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were John R. Kroger, Attorney General, and Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General.
Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Duncan, Judge, and Rasmussen, Judge pro tempore.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Mother appeals a judgment terminating her parental rights in her two children on the grounds of unfitness, ORS 419B.504, and extreme conduct, ORS 419B.502. A discussion of the facts would not benefit the bench, the bar, or the public. We reject without discussion mother's challenges to the termination of her parental rights on the ground of unfitness. Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court's judgment.
Given our disposition, we need not address, and imply no view as to the correctness of, the juvenile court's termination of parental rights on the alternative ground of extreme conduct pursuant to ORS 419B.502. See Dept. of Human Services v. B. J. B., 242 Or App 534, 537, 256 P3d 167 (2011) (holding that, in a case such as this one, "if a party specifies on appeal the collateral consequences that could result from a disposition that was based on some but not all of the allegations in a petition for termination of parental rights, we will, if appropriate, specify any allegations that play no part in our disposition").
Affirmed.