Dep't of Human Servs. v. B.B. (In re K. B.), J100512

• Decision Date: 20 June 2012
• Docket Number: A147227 (Control); A147228 and A147229.,J100512,J100513 and J100514
• Citation: 250 Or.App. 566,281 P.3d 653
• Parties: In the Matter of K. B., a Child. DEPARTMENT of HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner–Respondent, v. B.B. and K.M.N., Appellants. In the Matter of E. B., a Child. Department of Human Services, Petitioner–Respondent, v. B.B. and K.M.N., Appellants. In the Matter of S.B., a Child. Department of Human Services, Petitioner–Respondent, v. B.B. and K.M.N., Appellants.
• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals

250 Or.App. 566

281 P.3d 653

In the Matter of K. B., a Child.

DEPARTMENT of HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner–Respondent,

v.B.B. and K.M.N., Appellants.

In the Matter of E. B., a Child.

Department of Human Services, Petitioner–Respondent,

v.B.B. and K.M.N., Appellants.

In the Matter of S.B., a Child.

Department of Human Services, Petitioner–Respondent,

v.B.B. and K.M.N., Appellants.

J100512, J100513 and J100514; A147227 (Control); A147228 and A147229.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

June 20, 2012.

John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Inge D. Wells, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for petition.

Before SCHUMAN, Presiding Judge, and WOLLHEIM, Judge, and NAKAMOTO, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Respondent Department of Human Services (DHS) petitions for reconsideration of our opinion in Dept. of Human Services v. B. B., 248 Or.App. 715, 274 P.3d 242 (2012). DHS contends that we misconstrued ORAP 5.40(8) when we exercised our discretion to review the facts de novo despite the fact that the parties did not request that we do so. DHS requests that we instead issue a decision that applies an “any evidence” standard of review to the juvenile court's findings of historical fact. We allow the petition for reconsideration but adhere to our decision that, pursuant to ORS 19.415(3)(b), we, acting in our sole discretion, may try the case anew upon the record in an equitable action or proceeding, regardless of the parties' positions on the standard of review. See B. B., 248 Or.App. at 718 n. 1, 274 P.3d 242. We write only to address what should be included in a petition for reconsideration in a case like this one, where this court has exercised its discretion to review the facts de novo although no party has requested such review.

In its petition for reconsideration, DHS contends, in part, that, as a general matter, how it prepares its response brief depends on whether a parent who appeals a juvenile court's jurisdictional decision seeks de novo review and thereby puts DHS on notice that de novo review may occur. DHS states that, because it is now on notice that the court could undertake de novo review without a request by a party, then it must necessarily file a longer brief in every case. DHS, however, does not explain (1) why our decision to review the facts de novo without a request from the parents who appealed was detrimental to DHS's ability to adequately brief its position in this case, (2) how its brief in this case would have been different, and (3) how the facts on reconsideration under the de novo standard...