Dep't of Human Servs. v. W.F. (In re J. M. F.), A178688

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
Writing for the CourtKAMINS, J.
Citation322 Or.App. 792
PartiesIn the Matter of J. M. F., a Child. v. W. F., aka B. M. F., Appellant. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, In the Matter of W. F. F., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. W. F., aka B. M. F., Appellant.
Docket NumberA178688,A178689
Decision Date23 November 2022

322 Or.App. 792

In the Matter of J. M. F., a Child.

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent,
v.

W. F., aka B. M. F., Appellant.

In the Matter of W. F. F., a Child.

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Respondent,
v.

W. F., aka B. M. F., Appellant.

A178688, A178689

Court of Appeals of Oregon

November 23, 2022


Submitted October 26, 2022.

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

Jackson County Circuit Court 22JU00393; 22JU00394; Joe M. Charter, Judge.

Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Elena Stross, Deputy Public Defender, Offce of Public Defense Services, fled the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Carson L. Whitehead, Assistant Attorney General, fled the brief for respondent.

1

[322 Or.App. 793] Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and Kamins, Judge.

2

[322 Or.App. 794] KAMINS, J.

In this juvenile dependency case, father appeals the judgment asserting jurisdiction over his two children, ages 10 and three, raising eight assignments of error. We affirm.

In his first two assignments, father argues that the juvenile court erred in admitting the protective custody reports over his hearsay objections. Father contends that the court admitted the reports pursuant to the "rule of completeness" contained in OEC 106 (when part of document or conversation admitted, the whole is admissible),[1] which is not an exception to the hearsay rule. DHS responds that the court actually admitted the reports pursuant to OEC 202 (law that is judicially noticed),[2] because the reports were explicitly incorporated into the shelter care orders as the court's findings on reasonable efforts. Having reviewed the record, we agree with DHS, and further conclude that even if the admission of the reports was erroneous, any error was harmless.

In his remaining assignments of error, father argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the jurisdictional bases that father's substance abuse interferes with his ability to safely parent the children and that he leaves the children with unsafe caregivers. The record contains evidence to support the juvenile court's findings that father had relapsed, that someone who cared for the children had recently exposed them to illegal drugs, and that one of their caregivers had a known history of...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT