Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves an appeal by a father against a judgment that changed his child's permanency plan from permanent foster care to adoption. The father contended that the trial court failed to make necessary statutory findings as required by ORS 419B.476(2)(d) and ORS 419B.449(2) before approving the plan change. He also argued that adoption was not in the best interests of the child. The state countered that the father did not preserve the issue for appeal and that the trial court's omission of findings could not be reviewed as plain error. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, primarily addressing the first issue. It recognized that the trial court did commit an error by not making the required findings, but chose not to exercise its discretion to review the omission as plain error. The court found that the evidence supported the child's adoption as being in his best interests, noting that the Department of Human Services had made reasonable efforts for the child's safe return to his parents, who had not made sufficient progress. Consequently, the decision to modify the child's permanency plan to adoption was upheld, illustrating the court's approach to statutory requirements and preservation of error in appellate proceedings.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appellate Review of Plain Errorsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court considered whether to exercise discretion to review a plain error when statutory findings were omitted, ultimately choosing not to do so.
Reasoning: The court affirms the judgment but addresses only the first issue. It clarifies that the state's claim regarding the inability to review the omission of findings is incorrect, yet ultimately chooses not to exercise discretion in reviewing this potential error.
Best Interests of the Childsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed the decision to change the permanency plan to adoption, concluding it was in the child's best interests.
Reasoning: The court's findings highlighted the child's adoptability and the necessity for a permanent solution, ultimately concluding that adoption was in M's best interests.
Modification of Permanency Plansubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The legal principle concerns the trial court's ability to modify a child's permanency plan from foster care to adoption without making necessary statutory findings.
Reasoning: Father appeals a judgment that modified the child's permanency plan from permanent foster care to adoption.
Preservation of Error for Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court discussed the necessity of preserving errors for appeal, noting that the father's failure to preserve his argument could influence the appeal's consideration.
Reasoning: In this case, the father argues that the trial court failed to make these findings, while the state claims the father did not preserve this argument for appeal.
Statutory Findings Requirementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case examines whether the trial court made the required findings under ORS 419B.476(2)(d) and ORS 419B.449(2) before changing the permanency plan to adoption.
Reasoning: The appeal hinges on the question of whether the required statutory findings were made, with reference to ORS 419B.476(2)(d) and ORS 419B.449(2), which dictate the necessity of such findings at permanency hearings.