State v. D. B. O. ( 2023 )

No. 690 December 28, 2023 809
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
STATE OF OREGON
In the Matter of D. B. O.,
a Youth.
STATE OF OREGON,
Respondent,
v.
D. B. O.,
Appellant.
Washington County Circuit Court
20JU02812; A177760 (Control), A177761
Brandon M. Thompson, Judge.
Submitted June 8, 2023.
Christa Obold Eshleman and Youth, Rights & Justice
filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Shannon T. Reel, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Powers, Judge, and
Hellman, Judge.
POWERS, J.
Vacated and remanded as to OYA commitment; other-
wise affirmed.
810 State v. D. B. O.
POWERS, J.
In this consolidated juvenile delinquency case,
youth appeals from the judgment placing him in the care
and custody of the Oregon Youth Authority (OYA) for a period
not to exceed two years for conduct that, if committed by
an adult, would constitute sexual abuse in the third degree
and harassment. On appeal, youth’s challenge is narrow:
He argues that the juvenile court erred because its writ-
ten findings were inadequate to satisfy ORS 419C.478(1). In
a related case, we discussed that statutory standard and
concluded that the legislative mandate embodied in ORS
419C.478(1) explicitly requires written findings to describe
why it is in the youth’s best interests to be committed to
OYA. State v. D. B. O., 325 Or App 746, 748, 529 P3d 1004
(2023).
In this case, the entirety of the juvenile court’s writ-
ten findings regarding youth’s best interests provide: “It is
in the best interest and welfare of the youth that he/she be
placed in the legal custody of the Oregon Youth Authority
* * * because[:] youth is already in OYA YCF [youth correc-
tional facility] and cannot be maintained in the community.”
That economical explanation does not fulfill the legislative
mandate for written findings. Something more than find-
ing that youth was in a YCF on another case is needed. See
id. at 751 (concluding that “Cannot be maintained in the
community” is too ambiguous to meet the statutory stan-
dard). Although it is true that the juvenile court gave more
explanation in its oral ruling, that reasoning is not part of
the court’s written findings and therefore does not meet the
statutory requirement for written findings.
Vacated and remanded as to OYA commitment;
otherwise affirmed.