IN RE: N. E. J. B. (2019)

Father and child appeal a juvenile court judgment taking jurisdiction over child. The juvenile court determined that allegations in the petition as to father and as to mother had been proven, and that child was within the jurisdiction of the court under ORS 419B.100. The sole jurisdictional finding as to mother was that mother had abandoned child. Child assigns error to the juvenile court’s determination that she was within its jurisdiction, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support its finding that mother had abandoned her.

The Department of Human Services (DHS) concedes on appeal that the evidence was legally insufficient to support that finding, and it agrees that the judgment should be reversed.¹ See State ex rel. Dept. of Human Services v. C. R., 340 Or. 436, 450, 134 P.3d 940 (2006) (abandonment generally requires proof of intent to abandon). We agree with and accept DHS’s concession, and we reverse the jurisdictional judgment.² Dept. of Human Services v. G. C. P., 297 Or. App. 455, 459, 440 P.3d 128 (2019).

Reversed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   DHS provided notice under ORAP 8.45 that the appeal may have been rendered moot when the juvenile court subsequently terminated its wardship. Child identified continuing practical effects and collateral consequences of the juvenile court’s decision. Dept. of Human Services v. A. B., 362 Or. 412, 426, 412 P.3d 1169 (2018). Under the circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that the appeal is not moot.

2.   Father raises three assignments of error. In light of our disposition of child’s appeal, we need not reach father’s assignments of error. Dept of Human Services v. W. A. C., 263 Or. App. 382, 394, 328 P.3d 769 (2014) (Juvenile court jurisdiction is unwarranted if a parent capable of caring for the child safely appears in the proceeding.).

PER CURIAM