- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Juvenile Law
- Date Filed: 11-24-2021
- Case #: A175491
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Armstrong, P.J. for the Court; Tookey J.; & Hadlock, J.P.T.
- Full Text Opinion
Mother appealed a judgment from the juvenile court that denied her motion to dismiss jurisdiction over her children and changed their permanency plan from reunification to guardianship. Mother assigned error to the trial court having denied her motion as untimely and on the merits. On appeal, Mother argued that she was not required to move to dismiss earlier than she did and the trial court erroneously relied on facts extrinsic to the adjudicated bases for jurisdiction. In response, DHS argued that the motion was untimely under UTCR 5.030(1). UTCR 5.030(1) "pertains only to time limits for responding to motions" and "does not address time limits for filing motions." "If a fact cannot be fairly implied by the original jurisdictional bases, the juvenile court errs if it relies on that fact to continue dependency jurisdiction." See Dept. of Human Services v. G. E., 243 Or App 471, 479 (2011). The Court held that no statutory provision barred Mother's motion as untimely. Further, the Court held that since the original jurisdictional judgment did not explicitly refer to issues regarding Mother's age, health, and medical history, and because those facts were not fairly implied by the original judgment, the trial court erred in relying on those issues. Reversed and remanded.