Court Opinion

ID: 9905082
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-28 18:11:09.850844+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:23.402342
License: Public Domain

512                        November 17, 2023                             No. 31

             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
                   STATE OF OREGON

                         In the Matter of C. P.,
                                a Youth.
                         STATE OF OREGON,
                          Petitioner on Review,
                                    v.
                                  C. P.,
                  Respondent on Review.
         (CC 19JU08303) (CA A173762) (SC S069912)

   On review from the Court of Appeals.*
   Argued and submitted May 16, 2023.
   Gregory A. Rios, Assistant Attorney General, Salem,
argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioner on review.
Also on the briefs were Ellen Rosenblum, Attorney General,
and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.
   Christa Obold Eshleman, Youth, Rights & Justice, Portland,
argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent on review.
    Erin K. Olson, Law Office of Erin Olson PC, Portland,
filed the brief for amicus curiae Megan Levonian. Also on
the brief was Rosemary W. Brewer, Oregon Crime Victims
Law Center, Portland.
  Before Flynn, Chief Justice, and Duncan, Garrett,
DeHoog, Bushong, and Masih, Justices, and Baldwin, Senior
Judge, Justice pro tempore.**
   BUSHONG, J.
   The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The
order of the circuit court is affirmed.

______________
     * Appeal from Multnomah County Circuit Court, Amy Holmes Hehn, Judge.
322 Or App 51, 518 P3d 598 (2022).
   ** James, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
Cite as 371 Or 512 (2023)   513
514                                             State v. C. P.

        BUSHONG, J.
         The youth in this juvenile delinquency case struck
the victim on her head with a mallet, causing significant
injuries. The issue on review is whether the juvenile court
misconstrued the governing statute, ORS 419A.258, in
ordering disclosure of confidential records in youth’s file to
the victim before youth’s delinquency dispositional hearing.
The Court of Appeals concluded that the victim was unable
to show that disclosure was “necessary to serve a legit-
imate need” of the requesting party, as required by ORS
419A.258(7). State v. C. P., 322 Or App 51, 62, 67-68, 518 P3d
598 (2022). We allowed the state’s petition for review.
         We conclude from the text, context, and legislative
history of ORS 419A.258 that the statute, properly con-
strued, gives juvenile courts some discretion in weighing the
interests at stake before determining whether and to what
extent disclosure is necessary to serve a legitimate need of
the person seeking disclosure under the circumstances of a
given case. We reject the Court of Appeals’ interpretation
of what is necessary to serve a victim’s legitimate need and
conclude that the juvenile court in this case acted within the
range of discretion granted by the statute in ordering dis-
closure to the victim. Accordingly, we reverse the decision
of the Court of Appeals and affirm the order of the juvenile
court.
                    I. BACKGROUND
A. Facts and Proceedings Below
         As noted by the Court of Appeals, the facts relevant
to the issues on appeal are not in dispute. C. P., 322 Or App
at 52. The victim rented a room in the home where youth
lived. One night, youth entered the victim’s room while she
slept and struck her on the head with a mallet, causing sig-
nificant injuries. In the juvenile court, youth admitted that
he had engaged in that conduct and that his actions would
have constituted second-degree assault if he had been an
adult. Based on those admissions, the juvenile court adjudi-
cated youth to be within the court’s delinquency jurisdiction
and scheduled a hearing—known as a dispositional hear-
ing—to address the consequences of youth’s actions.
Cite as 371 Or 512 (2023)                                                     515

         Before the dispositional hearing, the victim filed
a motion under ORS 419A.258, requesting to inspect and
copy the juvenile court’s confidential file,1 including specif-
ically a psychological evaluation of, and the juvenile court
counselor’s report about, youth. Under ORS 419A.258(6), a
court addressing such a motion must weigh the interests
of parties and others who might be affected by disclosure,
including victims and the public. The provision that is at the
center of the parties’ dispute in this case, ORS 419A.258(7),
states that a court shall allow disclosure “only as necessary
to serve the legitimate need” of the person filing the motion.
          In this case, the person filing the motion—the vic-
tim—contended that, under ORS 419C.273 and Article I,
section 42, of the Oregon Constitution, she had a right to
meaningfully participate in the dispositional hearing and
stated in the declaration submitted in support of her motion
that she wanted to inspect the records in the confidential
file to facilitate that participation and make an informed
statement to the court. The supporting declaration further
stated that the information was relevant to the dispositional
hearing because the victim’s safety would be considered by
the court in determining an appropriate disposition, and
that allowing access to the file would help the victim fully
understand the circumstances surrounding this case and
assuage her fears regarding youth and the circumstances
surrounding the assault. Youth opposed the motion, con-
tending that the reports are confidential and privileged
under ORS 419A.255, and that the victim had not demon-
strated a “legitimate need” for the reports, as required by
ORS 419A.258(7)(a).
         The juvenile court granted the victim’s motion in
part. Specifically, the juvenile court ordered disclosure—
subject to a protective order governing use—of the youth’s
psychological evaluation; the juvenile court counselor’s
report; and the police reports related to the underlying

    1
      Under ORS 419A.255(1)(a), the clerk of the court is required to maintain
a “record of each case” and a “supplemental confidential file” for each juvenile
court case. The record of the case includes records filed in juvenile court proceed-
ings, ORS 419A.252(4), and the supplemental confidential file includes “reports
and other material relating to the * * * youth’s history and prognosis” that do not
become part of the record of the case. ORS 419A.252(5).
516                                                            State v. C. P.

incident.2 The juvenile court explained in its order that the
victim wanted to know “as much as possible about the Youth,
his mental process related to the offense, his strengths, his
motivations, and the level of risk he presents to her and to
the community in order to assess her own level of safety
under each of the dispositional options under consideration.”
The court made disclosure subject to a protective order that
retained the records in the constructive custody of the court
and required them to be turned over only to the victim’s
counsel, with the victim having a right to inspect—but not
copy—the records. The protective order further provided
that the records could not be disclosed to anyone else and
could not be used for any purpose other than the juvenile
proceeding.
         Youth appealed the disclosure order, and the Court
of Appeals reversed, concluding that, although the juvenile
court had correctly acknowledged that the victim’s right to
be heard at the dispositional hearing did not give the vic-
tim a “right per se to access” youth’s confidential file, and
the juvenile court had correctly weighed the interests it was
required to consider in deciding whether to grant the vic-
tim’s motion, C. P., 322 Or App at 64, the juvenile court’s
balancing of those interests did not “comport[ ] with the cor-
rect legal construction of the pertinent and overlapping con-
stitutional and statutory provisions,” id. at 64-65. According
to the Court of Appeals, “a proper construction of the legal
provisions involved here required the [juvenile] court to
resolve the competing interests reflected in this record, in
favor of youth and his family.” Id. at 65. The court explained
that, “[a]lthough the victim’s rights to participate and to
prepare are unquestionably legitimate, they do not give rise
to a ‘need’ to inspect the requested records.” Id. Thus, the
Court of Appeals concluded that the juvenile court “erred as
a matter of law when it granted the victim’s motion.” Id. at
68. The state petitioned for review, which we allowed.
B.    Standard of Review
        At the outset, we must determine the appropriate
standard for reviewing a juvenile court decision that authorizes
    2
      On appeal and in this court, youth does not challenge the disclosure of the
police reports.
Cite as 371 Or 512 (2023)                                                    517

disclosure of records in a youth’s confidential file. In consid-
ering that question, we note that, although youth has placed
at issue the correct interpretation of ORS 419A.258—which
we review for legal error3 —the statute, when properly con-
strued, still requires the juvenile court to make separate
discretionary determinations that we ordinarily would
review for abuse of discretion. See State v. Iseli, 366 Or 151,
161, 458 P3d 653 (2020) (“[I]f application of the appropriate
legal principles would permit more than one legally correct
outcome, then the appellate court reviews for abuse of dis-
cretion.”). However, in this case, youth does not contend that
the juvenile court abused its discretion in weighing the par-
ties’ interests under ORS 419A.258; the only issue presented
on appeal is the court’s interpretation of the statute, which
we review for legal error.
         We apply our traditional methodology in interpret-
ing the statute. See, e.g., State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171-72,
206 P3d 1042 (2009) (court gives primary weight to statutory
text in context, with appropriate additional weight accorded
to any relevant legislative history); PGE v. Bureau of Labor
and Industries, 317 Or 606, 611, 859 P2d 1143 (1993) (con-
text includes other provisions of the same statute and other
related statutes). In applying that methodology, we attempt
to discern the intent of the legislatures that enacted the
statutes. ORS 174.020; State v. McDowell, 352 Or 27, 30, 279
P3d 198 (2012).
                            II. DISCUSSION
        The juvenile court’s disclosure order in this case
was based on its understanding of ORS 419A.258. That stat-
ute broadly allows “any person” who is not entitled by other
statutes to review juvenile court records to file a motion
requesting access to the confidential case file. Nobody dis-
putes that the victim in this case was entitled to request
access to the records under ORS 419A.258. Youth contends,
however, that, in granting the victim’s request, the juvenile
court misinterpreted subsection (7) of the statute, which, as

    3
      See Dept. of Human Services v. S. J. M., 364 Or 37, 40, 430 P3d 1021 (2018)
(“We review the juvenile court’s legal conclusions for errors of law[.]”); see also
State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248, 256, 971 P2d 879 (1999) (“A trial court’s interpre-
tation of a statute is reviewed for legal error.”).
518                                                               State v. C. P.

noted above, provides that a juvenile court shall order dis-
closure “only as necessary to serve the legitimate need” of
the person seeking disclosure. The Court of Appeals agreed.
Before analyzing the statutory text and context, we briefly
summarize the parties’ arguments.
A. Contentions of the Parties
         Youth contends that ORS 419A.258(6) and (7)
together required the juvenile court to determine whether
the victim had demonstrated a “legitimate need” to inspect
the records before the victim would be given access to any
records in the supplemental confidential file, and that disclo-
sure to the victim in this case was not “necessary” to serve
any “legitimate need” of the victim within the meaning of
the statute. Youth further contends that those statutory
terms, properly construed, authorize disclosure only if dis-
closure was required to comply with the law. He argues that
disclosure to the victim was not required to comply with the
victim’s statutory and constitutional right to participate in
the dispositional hearing, because the victim could attend
the hearing and be heard without seeing the confidential
records.4
         The state notes that the victim’s right to participate
in the dispositional hearing is protected by ORS 419C.273
and Article I, section 42, of the Oregon Constitution. It
contends that the juvenile court appropriately applied the
statute, weighed the relevant interests to determine that
the victim’s request for access should be granted, and then
separately and correctly determined that disclosure of the
records at issue was “necessary” to serve the victim’s “legit-
imate need” to review those records in connection with the
dispositional hearing.
        The Court of Appeals agreed with youth, concluding
that “a party seeking disclosure must demonstrate some-
thing more than that disclosure would be beneficial to them;

    4
      Youth also contends that the victim did not need to access the confidential
information to participate in the dispositional hearing because the state already
had access to those materials and could use them to advocate for a proper disposi-
tion. That is true, but a victim’s interests do not always align with the state. That
is why victims have a statutory and constitutional right to participate—separate
from the state—in a dispositional hearing. ORS 419C.273; Or Const, Art I, § 42.
Cite as 371 Or 512 (2023)                                  519

they must demonstrate that disclosure is necessary under
the circumstances.” C. P., 322 Or App at 65-66 (emphasis
in original). The court thought that the statute’s context
“reflects that the legislature did not view victims as hav-
ing a ‘need’ to inspect confidential juvenile files,” id. at 66,
and concluded that, although access to confidential records
“might in theory be helpful to the prosecutor[, it] does not
establish that the victim has a ‘legitimate need’ ” to see the
records, id. at 67. We allowed review to resolve that import-
ant question of statutory interpretation. We begin with the
text and context of the statute.
B.   Statutory Text and Context
         In juvenile delinquency proceedings, the juvenile
court has authority to allow persons who are not parties to
the proceedings—including victims—to review court files
in certain circumstances. The court clerk is required to
“maintain a record of each case and a supplemental confi-
dential file for each case[.]” ORS 419A.255(1)(a). The “record
of the case” is “withheld from public inspection but is open
to inspection” by the persons specified in the statute, ORS
419A.255(1)(b). That provision does not specifically list vic-
tims within the categories of persons allowed to inspect the
“record of the case,” but it does allow inspection by “[a]ny
other person or entity allowed by the court pursuant to ORS
419A.258.” ORS 419A.255(1)(b)(Q). A subset of those allowed
to inspect the “record of the case” is entitled to receive cop-
ies of the record of the case. ORS 419A.255(1)(c). Again,
that subset does not specifically include victims, but it does
include “[a]ny other person or entity allowed by the court
pursuant to ORS 419A.258.” ORS 419A.255(1)(c)(E).
         With respect to the “supplemental confidential file,”
ORS 419A.255(2)(a) provides that records in that file relat-
ing to the youth’s “history and prognosis” are “privileged”
and “shall be withheld from public inspection” except as per-
mitted by paragraph (2)(b), which, in turn, limits inspection
to listed persons—again, not including victims in that list,
but including “[a]ny other person or entity allowed by the
court pursuant to ORS 419A.258.” ORS 419A.255(2)(b)(O).
Similarly, a subset of those allowed to inspect the supplemen-
tal confidential file is entitled to receive copies of material
520                                                 State v. C. P.

maintained in that file. ORS 419A.255(2)(d). That subset,
once again, does not include victims but does include “[a]ny
other person or entity allowed by the court pursuant to ORS
419A.258.” ORS 419A.255(2)(d)(J). Any person obtaining
copies of material in the supplemental confidential file is
responsible for preserving the confidentiality of that mate-
rial. ORS 419A.255(2)(e).
        The statute that is directly applicable here, ORS
419A.258, outlines the process for filing, serving, and
resolving a motion to allow access to the juvenile court file.
Subsection (1) of that statute provides:
       “Any person or entity not included in ORS 419A.255 as
   a person or entity entitled to inspection or copying of the
   record of the case or the supplemental confidential file may
   file a motion with the court to inspect or copy the record of
   the case or the supplemental confidential file. The person
   or entity filing the motion shall file a sworn affidavit or
   declaration under penalty of perjury that states all of the
   following:
      “(a) The reasons why the inspection or copying is
   sought;
       “(b) The relevancy, if any, of the inspection or copying
   to the juvenile court proceeding; and
      “(c) How the inspection or copying will serve to balance
   the interests listed in subsection (6) of this section.”
(Emphasis added.) Subsection (2) of ORS 419A.258 requires
the person filing the motion to serve it on all parties and
attorneys of record in the juvenile court proceeding and file
proof of service. Subsection (5) requires the court to conduct
an in camera review “[u]pon determination by the court that
the person or entity filing the motion has met the require-
ments of subsections (1) and (2)[.]”
        Subsection (6) of ORS 419A.258 provides that, after
the court conducts its in camera review and
   “in making the determination of whether to allow inspec-
   tion or copying of the record of the case or the supplemental
   confidential file, in whole or in part, the court shall weigh
   the following interests:
Cite as 371 Or 512 (2023)                                        521

       “(a) The privacy interests and particular vulnera-
   bilities of the * * * youth * * * that may be affected by the
   inspection or copying of all or part of the record of the case
   or the supplemental confidential file;
      “(b) The interests of the other parties to, or victims in,
   the juvenile court proceeding;
     “(c) The interests of the person or entity filing the
   motion; and
      “(d) The interests of the public.”
(Emphasis added.) Thus, the text of the statute specifically
lists the victim’s interests as one of the interests that the
juvenile court must weigh “in making the determination” of
whether to allow inspection or copying of the supplemental
confidential file.
         Subsection (7) of ORS 419A.258 provides:
      “In granting a motion made under this section, the
   court:
       “(a) Shall allow inspection or copying only as necessary
   to serve the legitimate need of the person or entity filing the
   motion, as determined by the court;
      “(b) May limit inspection or copying to particular
   parts of the record of the case or the supplemental confi-
   dential file;
      “(c) May specify the timing and procedure for allowing
   inspection or copying; and
     “(d) Shall make protective orders governing use of the
   materials that are inspected or copied.”
(Emphasis added.)
         Those provisions, read together, outline the pro-
cess that “any person” not otherwise entitled to inspect the
records in a juvenile court file—including a victim—must
follow to obtain access to those records, including the supple-
mental confidential portion of the file. Under that process, as
explained in more detail below, a person requesting access
to the records must file and serve a motion and supporting
affidavit or declaration; the court reviews those materials
and, if satisfied that certain statutory requirements have
522                                              State v. C. P.

been met, reviews the files; and the court then weighs the
competing interests and determines whether and to what
extent disclosure is necessary, subject to the terms of a pro-
tective order.
          Subsection (1) of ORS 419A.258 recognizes that per-
sons or entities specifically listed in ORS 419A.255 already
have a right of access to the file; ORS 419A.258 addresses a
request for access by any person or entity not listed in ORS
419A.255. The first step in the process, described in sub-
section (1) of ORS 419A.258, occurs when a person or entity
requesting access files a motion to inspect or copy the file.
The motion must be supported by a sworn affidavit or decla-
ration outlining the reasons for the request, how the request
is relevant to the juvenile court proceeding, and how the
request fits within the interest-balancing test under subsec-
tion (6). The motion and supporting material must be served
in accordance with subsection (2).
         If the court determines that the moving party has
complied with the filing and service requirements of sub-
sections (1) and (2), then subsection (5) requires the court
to conduct an in camera review of the file. After conducting
that review, subsection (6) requires the court to “weigh” the
interests of those listed in that subsection—which expressly
includes victims—and subsection (7) requires the court to
allow access “only as necessary to serve the legitimate need”
of the person requesting access.
         In weighing the interests of the persons listed in
subsection (6), the court must examine the reasons for seek-
ing access given by the person filing the motion and deter-
mine how allowing access to those materials might be per-
tinent to the proceedings. The court’s assessment of that
person’s “interests” under subsection (6) would thus include
some consideration of whether the person has a “legitimate
need” to access the materials—however that term is defined.
In addition, in determining the extent of access that should
be allowed under subsection (7), the court could determine
that none of the records in the juvenile court file is neces-
sary to serve the person’s “legitimate need,” effectively deny-
ing access entirely. Thus, as a practical matter, subsections
(6) and (7), read together, both require juvenile courts to
Cite as 371 Or 512 (2023)                                                      523

assess whether and to what extent a person seeking disclo-
sure has demonstrated a legitimate need for the materials
sought. We turn to analyzing what the legislature intended
when it authorized juvenile courts to order disclosure “only
as necessary to serve the legitimate need” of the person
requesting disclosure.
           We start with the plain meanings of the terms
“legitimate” and “need.” The dictionary defines “legitimate”
as “genuine * * *[;] accordant with law or with established
legal forms and requirements.” Webster’s Third New Int’l
Dictionary 1291 (unabridged ed 2002). The word “need”—
when used as a noun, as it is here—means a “necessary duty
* * *[;] a want of something requisite, desirable, or useful.”
Id. at 1512. The word “necessary” means “whatever is essen-
tial for some purpose.” Id. at 1510.
          In this context, the dictionary definition of “nec-
essary”—whatever is essential for some purpose—is help-
ful, but the intended purpose that must be served by dis-
closure remains unclear.5 Although the text requires that
disclosure must be necessary to serve the requesting per-
son’s “legitimate need,” the term “need,” as noted above, can
mean “a want of something” that is “requisite” or “desirable”
or “useful.” Thus, considering the dictionary definitions
alone, access might be “necessary” to serve the moving par-
ty’s “legitimate need” to review certain records in the file if
access would be essential for a requisite purpose, meaning
something that is required. Alternatively, disclosure to the
moving party might be “necessary” to serve the movant’s
“legitimate need” if access to the records would be essential
for a desirable or useful purpose even though it may not be
required.
        Given those differing dictionary definitions, we must
“consider the statutory words in context to determine which

    5
      In other contexts, we have determined that the dictionary definitions of the
word “necessary” may not resolve the issue. State v. Jackson, 369 Or 510, 522,
508 P3d 457 (2022); see also Penn v. Board of Parole, 365 Or 607, 631, 451 P3d 589
(2019) (noting that, when not defined in a statute, “the word ‘necessary’ * * * is an
inexact term, the intended meaning of which is for [the] court to determine”). In
addition, some statutes may authorize actions that are “reasonably necessary”
to accomplishing a specified purpose; in that context, we would not understand
“necessary” to mean “essential.”
524                                                     State v. C. P.

of multiple definitions is the one that the legislature
intended.” State v. Clemente-Perez, 357 Or 745, 765, 359 P3d
232 (2015). As noted above, context includes other provi-
sions of the same statute and other related statutes. PGE,
317 Or at 611. Also as noted above, subsection (1) of ORS
419A.258 requires the moving party to submit in support of
the motion an affidavit or declaration stating the reasons for
the request, how it is relevant to the proceeding, and how it
will serve the court in balancing the interests it is required
to balance under subsection (6).
         Subsection (6), in turn, requires the court to weigh
the interests of the moving party against a youth’s “privacy
interests and particular vulnerabilities” as well as the inter-
ests of other parties, the victim, and the public. Assessing
all the reasons stated for seeking disclosure and weighing
all the relevant interests listed in the statute would seem, at
least preliminarily, to support an interpretation that gives
juvenile courts some discretion to consider more than just
whether disclosure would be essential to serve a purpose
required by law.
        We turn to the legislative history to see whether it
sheds any additional light on the legislature’s intent.
C. Legislative History
         As explained below, the legislative history, although
not especially illuminating, does not contradict our tentative
conclusion that, in assessing whether a person has demon-
strated that disclosure was “necessary” to serve the person’s
“legitimate need” to access confidential records, the legisla-
ture intended to authorize juvenile courts to consider more
than what would be essential to serve a purpose required by
law.
          The statutes addressing access to confidential juve-
nile files date back to 1993, when the legislature enacted the
first iteration of ORS 419A.255 as part of a comprehensive
revision of the Oregon Juvenile Code. Or Laws 1993, ch 33,
§ 49.6 As originally enacted, ORS 419A.255 did not permit
victims or other persons who were not specifically listed in
   6
     ORS 419A.255 (1993) was slightly amended several times between 1993
and 2013.
Cite as 371 Or 512 (2023)                                   525

that statute to access confidential juvenile records at all.
See ORS 419A.255 (1993) (“The record of the case shall be
withheld from public inspection but shall be open to inspec-
tion by the child, parent, guardian or surrogate and their
attorneys. * * * Reports and other material relating to the
child’s history and prognosis are privileged and * * * shall
not be disclosed * * * to anyone other than the judge of the
juvenile court, those acting under the judge’s direction and
to the attorneys of record for the child or the child’s parent,
guardian or surrogate.”).
        In 2013, the legislature amended ORS 419A.255 to
permit persons who were not parties to the juvenile court
proceedings to inspect and obtain copies of records in some
circumstances. Or Laws 2013, ch 417, § 3. The 2013 legisla-
tion was the culmination of a process that started in 2010,
when the Oregon Judicial Department asked the Oregon Law
Commission (OLC) to review, clarify, and improve juvenile
code provisions related to confidentiality of juvenile court
records—and specifically requested review and improve-
ment of ORS 419A.255. Exhibit 12, House Committee on
Judiciary, SB 622, May 14, 2013, 3 (Juvenile Records Work
Group Report for SB 622 (2013), Oregon Law Commission)
(Juvenile Records Report). The OLC formed a work group to
recommend legislation for clearer rules for access to juvenile
court records. Id. at 3-4.
          Among the changes recommended by the OLC work
group were the provisions ultimately included in the current
version of ORS 419A.255, summarized above, that autho-
rized juvenile courts to allow persons other than those spe-
cifically listed in the statute to request access to juvenile
court records. The work group described those provisions as
“a catch-all” that would give juvenile courts “authority and
discretion” to allow inspection or copying of records by per-
sons or entities not specifically listed in the statute. Juvenile
Records Report at 10, 12. The legislature ultimately adopted
the work group’s recommendations and amended ORS
419A.255, but it delayed the operational date of the “catch-
all” provisions until 2016. See Exhibit 13, Senate Committee
on Judiciary, HB 4074, Feb 22, 2016, 1-2 (Amendments to
the Juvenile Court Records Statutes Report for HB 4074A
526                                                              State v. C. P.

(2016), Oregon Law Commission) (Amendments Report)
(explaining that litigation involving members of both the
OLC and the juvenile records work group had been filed
when the “catch-all” provisions were first being considered,
and recommending delaying further consideration of those
provisions, in part, due to pending litigation). Another rea-
son for that delay was to give the work group time to solicit
input from juvenile court judges and others to develop stan-
dards that juvenile courts could use in applying the “catch-
all” provisions. Id. at 2-3.
          Ultimately, the OLC work group recommended
the procedures that were subsequently codified in ORS
419A.258, which the work group described as “an approach
that balances adequate guidance for juvenile court judges
while still providing them with meaningful discretion.”
Id. at 4; see also Or Laws 2016, ch 95, § 9 (enacting what
is now ORS 419A.258). One issue of particular concern
was ensuring that the provisions complied with the “open
courts” requirement of the Oregon Constitution.7 The work
group believed that the standards it recommended “[struck]
the appropriate balance between open courts and protect-
ing juvenile interests.” Amendments Report at 4. The work
group also “felt it necessary for the courts to include in its
balancing of factors the interests of all parties of the pro-
ceedings as well as any victims involved in the proceedings.”
Id. at 6.
        Unfortunately, aside from listing the factors the
court should consider in conducting the required balancing,
the report does not specifically describe what evidence the
court must examine or how it should weigh the competing
interests under subsection (6). The report does state that,
under subsection (7), disclosure should be allowed “only as
necessary,” id., but it does not explain how a court was to
determine what would be “necessary” or for what purpose.

    7
      The “open courts” clause of Article I, section 10, of the Oregon Constitution
states, “No court shall be secret, but justice shall be administered, openly and
without purchase[.]” We analyzed that provision in Doe v. Corp. of Presiding
Bishop, 352 Or 77, 102, 280 P3d 377 (2012), concluding there that the provision
did not require a trial court “to order the release of exhibits that were subject to
an earlier protective order requiring that the parties maintain their confidenti-
ality at the close of trial.”
Cite as 371 Or 512 (2023)                                 527

          Judge Maureen McKnight, a member of the work
group and the chief family law judge in Multnomah County
at the time, testified to a legislative committee in support
of the legislation, proposed as House Bill (HB) 4074 (2016).
Judge McKnight testified that the “upshot” of the weigh-
ing of interests required by subsection (6) of the proposed
legislation was that “the court was to consider all of [the]
interests and in a particular case one or more might prepon-
derate, but we didn’t want to emphasize or detail what that
weighing would be because it would be driven by the indi-
vidual facts in the case.” Audio Recording, House Committee
on Judiciary, HB 4074, Feb 9, 2016, at 1:12:29 (testimony of
Judge Maureen McKnight), https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov
(accessed Nov 7, 2023). After conducting that balancing,
Judge McKnight explained, the juvenile court would “allow
* * * access as necessary to serve [the moving party’s] need if
the court found it legitimate.” Id. at 1:12:50. Judge McKnight
did not otherwise explain how a juvenile court was to deter-
mine whether and to what extent access was “necessary” to
serve the moving party’s “legitimate need.”
         Thus, the legislative history does not conclusively
determine what the legislature intended when it required
juvenile courts to order disclosure “only as necessary to
serve the legitimate need” of the person requesting access
to confidential records, though the history does show that
the legislation was designed to give juvenile courts some
discretion to make access decisions on a case-by-case basis,
determining whether to grant a motion for disclosure by
weighing the factors listed in subsection (6) and limiting the
extent of disclosure by assessing the moving parties’ needs
and whether the court found those needs to be “legitimate.”
D. Summary of Statutory Interpretation
         Given the limited assistance provided by the leg-
islative history, we return to the text and context of ORS
419A.258, as the best evidence of the legislature’s intent.
See Gaines, 346 Or at 171 (stating that “text and context
remain primary, and must be given primary weight in the
analysis”). Under the Court of Appeals’ interpretation of
ORS 419A.258(6) and (7), a victim’s right to participate in
a dispositional hearing is insufficient as a matter of law to
528                                               State v. C. P.

establish that disclosure is “necessary” to serve a victim’s
“legitimate need” to access material in a youth’s confiden-
tial file because the victim can participate in the hearing
without seeing the records. C. P., 322 Or App at 67. We dis-
agree. As explained below, we conclude that the legislature
intended for juvenile courts to determine both the need for
and extent of disclosure on a case-by-case basis, and that,
depending on the circumstances, disclosure can be neces-
sary to serve a victim’s legitimate need within the meaning
of the statute.
         As noted, the text of ORS 419A.258(7) authorizes
disclosure only when the movant’s interests outweigh the
other interests set out in ORS 419A.258(6) and “only as nec-
essary to serve the legitimate need” of the person request-
ing access. The dictionary definitions of those words suggest
two possibilities, as discussed above. One possibility is that
the legislature intended to limit juvenile courts’ authority
to order disclosure only if disclosure would be essential to
serving a purpose that is required by law, as the Court of
Appeals concluded. Another possibility is that the legisla-
ture intended to allow juvenile courts to order disclosure if
disclosure would be essential to serving a purpose that is
consistent with the law.
         Although both possibilities are plausible, we con-
clude that the second possibility is the better reading of
the statutory text in context, consistent with the legisla-
tive history. As noted above, one of the primary concerns
addressed by the 2013 legislation was ensuring compliance
with the “open courts” clause of Article I, section 10, of the
Oregon Constitution. Under that clause, the media and the
public may have an interest in disclosure of records in the
court files. Under ORS 419A.258(6), that interest must be
weighed against the youth’s competing privacy interests. If
the only purpose that would qualify as a “legitimate need”
is a purpose that is required by law, and if the public’s inter-
est under the open courts clause is treated as a disclosure
that is “required by law,” then juvenile courts would always
have to order disclosure upon request. Conversely, disclo-
sure would never be allowed if protecting the youth’s privacy
interests is something that is “required by law.”
Cite as 371 Or 512 (2023)                                 529

         That suggests that a disclosure “as necessary to
serve the legitimate need” of the person requesting access
was not intended to mean only a disclosure that serves a
purpose “required by law.” A better reading of the statute
acknowledges that both the public’s interest in disclosure
and the youth’s interest in privacy are cognizable under
and protected by the law—and, thus, serving those inter-
ests could justify disclosure in some circumstances—but the
statute should not be understood to mean that disclosure
must be denied in all circumstances unless it would serve
an interest that is required by law. That is why a weighing
of those interests is necessary. That suggests that the legis-
lature may have intended that, by allowing disclosure when
“necessary to serve a legitimate need” of the moving party,
the moving party’s need can be broader than just what is
essential to serve a purpose that is required by law.
          The fact that subsection (6) of ORS 419A.258 spe-
cifically lists a victim’s interests among the interests that
the juvenile court must weigh in determining whether to
grant a motion for access is also illustrative. Although that
provision may, in part, reflect legislative concerns about vic-
tim privacy, a victim in a juvenile delinquency proceeding
also has interests arising from the victim’s right to partici-
pate in such proceedings as provided by statute and by the
Oregon Constitution. ORS 419C.273(2)(a)(c) gives crime vic-
tims a statutory right to be heard at dispositional hearings
in juvenile court. Article I, section 42(1)(a), of the Oregon
Constitution gives crime victims the right “to be present at”
and, upon request, “to be heard” at a juvenile court delin-
quency dispositional hearing. We have indicated that a
victim’s right to be heard “is similar to a defendant’s right
of allocution” before sentencing in a criminal case. State v.
Ball, 362 Or 807, 817, 416 P3d 301 (2018). A defendant exer-
cising the right of allocution should be “given an opportu-
nity to make any relevant personal comments to the court.”
DeAngelo v. Schiedler, 306 Or 91, 95-96, 757 P2d 1355 (1988).
        Although the victim’s right to be “present” and
“heard” at a dispositional hearing does not require victims to
have access to juvenile court records, ORS 419A.258(6) does
require the juvenile court to weigh the victim’s interests
530                                            State v. C. P.

along with the interests of the youth, other parties to the
proceeding, and the public. If the legislature had intended
to limit the court’s assessment of the victim’s interests to
determining what disclosures would be essential to serve
only those purposes that are required by law—in this con-
text, complying with a victim’s right to be present and
heard—that purpose is served by simply allowing victims
to attend the hearing and giving them the opportunity to
speak.
         But if that is what the legislature intended, then
crime victims would never be allowed to access the juvenile
court file because access to that file would never be neces-
sary to give a victim a right to be present and to be heard,
as required by law. At least with respect to victims, there
would have been no reason to give “any person”—including
specifically a crime victim—the right to seek access to the
file under subsection (1) of ORS 419A.258, nor would there
be any reason to consider a victim’s interests as part of the
“weighing” process required by subsection (6), if the statute
is read that narrowly. Again, that suggests that the legis-
lature intended to give juvenile courts some discretion to
order limited disclosures to victims to serve purposes that
are broader than only those purposes that are required by
law.
         If the statute authorizes juvenile courts to order
disclosure where it would be essential to serve a purpose
authorized—but not required—by law, the court would
address a motion to inspect or copy juvenile court records
by weighing a variety of factors in assessing the “needs”
articulated by the moving party, determining whether those
needs are “legitimate,” and then determining whether dis-
closure is essential to serve a purpose consistent with the
law. That assessment is not limited to determining what
disclosures are required by law. Instead, the court should
assess why a moving party has requested access and deter-
mine whether those reasons are legitimate. That, in turn,
requires the court to assess whether the moving party’s
stated reasons are “genuine” and lawful. Finally, the court
must determine—under the circumstances of a particular
case—whether and to what extent disclosure is necessary
Cite as 371 Or 512 (2023)                                  531

to serve that purpose. In other words, the statute allows a
juvenile court to balance competing interests and, based on
that balancing, determine what information to disclose, if
any. In doing so, a juvenile court must be mindful of the
long-recognized, strong privacy interests that a youth and
their family have in the records in a juvenile court’s confi-
dential file.
           Under that interpretation, the victim’s right to par-
ticipate in a dispositional hearing could, in some instances,
support some disclosure of records in a confidential file.
Allowing a victim access to a youth’s psychological evalu-
ation, for example, could be “necessary” to serve the vic-
tim’s “legitimate need” if the juvenile court determines that
(1) it is important under the circumstances of that case for
the victim to be able to understand, address, and respond
to the youth’s mental health issues; (2) that information is
not otherwise known to the victim; and (3) the victim’s need
for the information outweighs the interests in keeping the
information confidential. If the victim and the youth are
friends, relatives, or otherwise closely associated in a way
that makes it likely that they will have future interactions
with each other, a juvenile court could determine that a vic-
tim might need to consider the youth’s psychological eval-
uation before addressing the court, because disclosure in
that context would allow the victim to understand how she
might have misjudged the threat posed by the youth and
take steps to ensure her safety in the future, but the juve-
nile court could allow disclosure only if the victim’s interests
outweighed the strong interests in protecting the confidenti-
ality of juvenile records.
         Thus, victims are not always entitled to access
records in the confidential file in a juvenile proceeding. If,
for example, the victim did not know the youth before the
assault or where it is unlikely that they will be interacting
with each other in the future, the juvenile court might very
well conclude that the victim does not have any legitimate
need to see the youth’s evaluation and deny access because
the circumstances do not give rise to any need for the vic-
tim to fully understand the youth’s mental and psycholog-
ical issues, and any interest that the victim may have in
532                                              State v. C. P.

reviewing those records would be outweighed by the strong
interests in protecting the youth’s privacy. The legislature
intended for juvenile courts to determine both the need for
and extent of disclosure on a case-by-case basis. In some
circumstances, a victim’s stated reasons for seeking access
might not, when weighed against the privacy interests of the
youth and other interests, justify ordering disclosure of any
materials in the supplemental confidential file. In other cir-
cumstances, a victim’s stated reasons for requesting access
to allow meaningful participation in the dispositional hear-
ing might justify disclosure under the terms of an appropri-
ate protective order.
         Unlike the Court of Appeals, we do not interpret
ORS 419A.258(6) and (7) to mean that a victim’s right to
participate in a dispositional hearing is insufficient as a
matter of law to establish that disclosure may be necessary
to serve a victim’s legitimate need to access material in the
confidential file. Rather, we conclude that the statute, prop-
erly interpreted, gives juvenile courts some discretion in
weighing the relevant interests and, if the victim’s interests
outweigh the other interests, the juvenile court can deter-
mine whether and to what extent disclosure is necessary to
serve the victim’s legitimate need under the circumstances.
E. Application to This Case
         In this case, as described above, the victim and
youth lived in the same house at the time of the assault,
and there was no evidence that anything happened between
the two to precipitate the attack. Instead, the evidence was
that youth entered the victim’s room while she was sleep-
ing and hit her on the head with a mallet for no apparent
reason. The juvenile court weighed the interests of youth,
the victim, the parties to the proceeding, and the public, as
required by subsection (6) of ORS 419A.258, and it ordered
disclosure of three records in youth’s confidential file. Youth
does not dispute that the victim’s interests permitted the
court to order disclosure of the police reports, contending
instead that disclosure of the psychological evaluation and
the juvenile counselor’s report was not necessary to serve
any legitimate need of the victim within the meaning of the
Cite as 371 Or 512 (2023)                                                  533

statute.8 The Court of Appeals concluded that disclosure of
those confidential records was not necessary to serve any
legitimate need of the victim as a matter of law. We disagree.
         In ordering disclosure in this case, the juvenile court
correctly determined that the victim’s constitutional right to
be heard in the dispositional hearing did not automatically
give the victim a “right” to access that juvenile court records.
Instead, the juvenile court gave the victim’s constitutional
right to participate “significant weight” and weighed the
victim’s safety needs and interests against youth’s privacy
interests and particular vulnerabilities. After determining
that it should grant the motion, the juvenile court entered a
protective order that only gave the victim an opportunity to
inspect the materials, not to copy them—with the materials
to remain in the possession of the victim’s attorney—and
prohibited the victim and her attorney from disclosing the
records to anyone else or using them for any purpose other
than the juvenile proceedings.
          As noted above, the juvenile court explained in its
order that the victim wanted to know “as much as possible
about the Youth, his mental process related to the offense,
his strengths, his motivations, and the level of risk he pres-
ents to her and to the community in order to assess her own
level of safety under each of the dispositional options under
consideration,” concluding that disclosure of three docu-
ments subject to a protective order was “necessary to serve
the victim’s legitimate need for information.” In this con-
text, the juvenile court correctly understood the “legitimate
need” provision of subsection (7) of ORS 419A.258 to mean
that it could order access after assessing the victim’s stated
reasons for requesting access, determining whether those
reasons were genuine and in accordance with the statutory
and constitutional provisions that give victims a right to be
heard at juvenile court dispositional hearings, and deciding
that it was essential under the circumstances of this case
for the victim to meaningfully understand what had hap-
pened to her, why it had happened, and how to protect her-
self in the future. As discussed above, that understanding

   8
     Youth also does not contend that the juvenile court abused its discretion in
weighing the relevant interests at stake as required by ORS 419A.258(6).
534                                             State v. C. P.

was consistent with the legislative intent reflected in the
text, context, and legislative history of the statute.
         In short, the statute gave the juvenile court some
discretion to weigh the relevant interests, and then the
court could determine whether and to what extent disclo-
sure might be necessary to serve the victim’s legitimate
need. Here, the juvenile court did exactly what the legisla-
ture intended that juvenile courts should do in weighing the
competing interests, limiting disclosure, and entering an
appropriate protective order. The juvenile court’s disclosure
order in this case was not based on a misinterpretation of
ORS 419A.258.
                    III.   CONCLUSION
         The juvenile court did not misinterpret ORS
419A.258 in ordering disclosure of two records in youth’s
confidential court file to the victim and her counsel, subject
to the terms of a protective order, under the circumstances
of this case.
        The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
The order of the circuit court is affirmed.