Dept. of Human Services v. N. A. S. ( 2024 )

358 August 14, 2024 No. 565
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
STATE OF OREGON
In the Matter of E. C. S.,
a Child.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
N. A. S.,
Appellant.
Wheeler County Circuit Court
21JU02419; A179842
John A. Wolf, Judge.
On appellant’s petition for reconsideration filed June 18,
2024. Opinion filed April 17, 2024. 332 Or App 89, 548 P3d
505.
Sean Connor, Deputy Public Defender, and Shannon
Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, Office of
Public Defense Services, for petition.
Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, Powers, Judge, and
Hellman, Judge.
HELLMAN, J.
Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and
adhered to as modified.
Cite as 334 Or App 358 (2024) 359
HELLMAN, J.
Mother has petitioned for reconsideration of our
opinion in this case, Dept. of Human Services v. N. A. S., 332
Or App 89, 548 P3d 505 (2024), asserting that the opinion
erroneously shifted the burden to mother to prove that she
had changed, instead of holding the department to its bur-
den to prove that her progress was insufficient. We disagree
with mother’s assertion. The opinion did not shift the bur-
den to mother. Instead, it recognized that the record permit-
ted the juvenile court to determine that mother’s progress
was insufficient. Out of an abundance of caution, however,
we allow reconsideration and revise the opinion to avoid any
confusion.
On page 91, the following citation is added directly
after the citation to Dept. of Human Services v. C. W., 312
Or App 572, 574, 493 P3d 74 (2021):
Dept. of Human Services v. Y. B., 372 Or 133, 151, 546 P3d
255 (2024) (explaining that appellate courts review suffi-
cient progress determinations “by examining whether the
facts explicitly and implicitly found by the juvenile court,
together with all inferences reasonably drawn from those
facts, were legally sufficient to support the juvenile court’s
determination”).
The original opinion, on page 96, contains this
sentence:
“That evidence, coupled with the absence of any evidence
demonstrating a substantial change in mother’s behavior,
permitted the juvenile court to reasonably infer that moth-
er’s pattern of substance abuse was unchanged.”
That sentence is revised to read as follows:
“That specific evidence, along with the entirety of the record
that demonstrated no meaningful change in mother’s
behavior, permitted the juvenile court to reasonably infer
that mother’s pattern of substance abuse was unchanged.”
Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified
and adhered to as modified.