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

746
Submitted February 24, vacated and remanded for written findings under
ORS 419C.478(1) May 3, 2023
In the Matter of D. B. O.,
a Youth.
STATE OF OREGON,
Respondent,
v.
D. B. O.,
Appellant.
Washington County Circuit Court
20JU01523;
A176532 (Control), A176535
529 P3d 1004
Youth appeals a judgment and order entered in youth’s delinquency case plac-
ing him in the care and custody of the Oregon Youth Authority (OYA) and further
recommending placement in a youth correctional facility. Youth argues that the
juvenile court erred by failing to adequately explain in writing, as required by
ORS 419C.478(1), why it found the commitment to be in his best interests. In this
case, the commitment order reads, “Youth cannot be maintained in the commu-
nity.” Held: “Cannot be maintained in the community” fails to explain why it is
in youth’s “best interests” to be placed in OYA custody. The juvenile court needed
to further explain, in the commitment order, its consideration of the significant
ramifications the commitment will have on youth and his rehabilitation. “Cannot
be maintained in the community” is too ambiguous to meet the requirements of
ORS 419C.478(1).
Vacated and remanded for written findings under ORS 419C.478(1).
Brandon M. Thompson, Judge.
Erica Hayne Friedman and Youth, Rights & Justice filed
the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Emily N. Snook, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, and Joyce, Judge, and
Jacquot, Judge.
JACQUOT, J.
Vacated and remanded for written findings under ORS
419C.478(1).
Cite as 325 Or App 746 (2023) 747
JACQUOT, J.
Youth appeals a judgment and order entered in
youth’s delinquency case placing him in the care and cus-
tody of the Oregon Youth Authority (OYA) and further rec-
ommending placement in a youth correctional facility. ORS
419C.478(1) mandates that in any order committing a youth
to the custody of OYA, a juvenile court “shall include writ-
ten findings describing why it is in the best interests of the
adjudicated youth to be placed with the youth authority.”
Youth alleges that the juvenile court erred by failing to ade-
quately explain in writing why the commitment was in his
best interests. Because the juvenile court did not make ade-
quate written findings to explain why commitment to OYA
was in youth’s best interest, we vacate both the judgment
and order and remand for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.
Youth, 12, was adjudicated delinquent for sexually
abusing another child while at school. Between jurisdiction
and disposition, he had run from a community placement
and was not found for three weeks. The court completed a
disposition judgment and a commitment order committing
him to the care and custody of OYA for a period not to exceed
13 years. In the space allocated on the commitment order for
written best interest findings, the commitment order reads,
“Youth cannot be maintained in the community.” The box
recommending placement in the youth correctional facil-
ity is checked. At the same time, the juvenile court entered
a disposition judgment, a separate document, which also
ordered that youth be committed to OYA custody. The judg-
ment included two additional special probation conditions:
(1) “Youth needs to complete sex offender [treatment] with
OYA,” and (2) “OYA needs to monitor youth’s medication at
least monthly.”
Youth raises one assignment of error. He argues
that when ordering youth committed into OYA custody, the
juvenile court erred by failing to include written findings
pursuant to ORS 419C.478(1) adequately describing why
such commitment was in youth’s best interests. The mat-
ter is not preserved, but youth is excused from preservation
requirements because he had no opportunity to object before
748 State v. D. B. O.
the judgment and commitment order were issued. State v.
S. D. M., 318 Or App 418, 420, 506 P3d 1190 (2022) (citing
State ex rel DHS v. M. A., 227 Or App 172, 182, 205 P3d 36
(2009)).
ORS 419C.478(1) provides:
“The court may, in addition to probation or any other dis-
positional order, place an adjudicated youth who is at least
12 years of age in the legal custody of the Oregon Youth
Authority for care, placement and supervision or, when
authorized under subsection (3) of this section, place an
adjudicated youth in the legal custody of the Department
of Human Services for care, placement and supervision. In
any order issued under this section, the court shall include
written findings describing why it is in the best interests of
the adjudicated youth to be placed with the youth authority
or the department.”1
(Emphasis added.)
The statutory requirement for written findings
is “unambiguous.” State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. C. N. W., 212
Or App 551, 552, 159 P3d 333 (2007). The parties do not
need to request findings, and findings are necessary even
when evidence supports the juvenile court’s disposition. Id.A juvenile court’s failure to include findings is legal error.
Id.; see also State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. K. M.-R., 213 Or App
275, 276, 160 P3d 994 (2007) (remanding for juvenile court
to make appropriate written findings). Regardless of com-
munity safety or other practical considerations leading to
the youth’s commitment, such as a probation violation, the
mandate explicitly requires the findings to describe why it
is in the youth’s “best interests” to be committed to OYA. See
S. D. M., 318 Or App at 421 (written findings under ORS
419C.478(1) stating that the youth had “violated the require-
ments of probation” failed to describe “why it is in a youth’s
best interests to be committed to OYA’s custody” (emphasis
added)). A best interests assessment is “a child-focused con-
sideration” and “must be child-centered.” Dept. of Human
Services v. T. M. D., 365 Or 143, 158, 166, 442 P3d 1100
1
The language of ORS 419C.478(1) was amended after the relevant events
in this case to replace “youth offender” with “adjudicated youth.” Or Laws 2021,
ch 489, § 2. The amendment does not affect our analysis, and we use the current
statutory language for convenience.
Cite as 325 Or App 746 (2023) 749
(2019). By requiring written findings concerning the child’s
best interests, the legislature expressed its intent that the
juvenile court carefully evaluate the decision and separately
provide a written explanation. S. D. M., 318 Or App at 420(explaining that legislatively required written best interest
findings are meant to ensure that a juvenile court’s decision
is most likely to lead to a positive outcome for the child (cit-
ing M. A., 227 Or App at 183-84)).
This court’s decision in S. D. M. provides the
groundwork for our analysis. In that case, an adjudicated
youth’s probation was revoked because the youth did not
follow probationary rules and complete the sex-offender-
treatment program ordered by the juvenile court. 318
Or App at 420-21. The juvenile court filled out a preprinted
form committing the youth to OYA custody, and the form
provided a space to describe why commitment was in the
youth’s best interests. Id. at 420. The juvenile court wrote
that “youth violated the requirements of probation; he did
not follow the rules of sex offender treatment.” Id. On appeal,
we held that those findings were insufficient. We explained
that the statute expresses the legislature’s intent that juve-
nile courts “also consider and then separately provide” a
written description of why OYA custody is in the youth’s
best interests, as opposed to remaining with family or in
the community. Id. at 421. We explained:
“Something more is needed to describe why it is in a
youth’s best interests to be committed to OYA’s custody
other than the mere fact of a probation violation. Here, the
probation violation and the basis for that violation could
perhaps lead to an explanation of why it would be in the
best interests of youth to be committed to a custodial set-
ting rather than to remain with family or in the commu-
nity, but it is not an explanation itself.”
Id. Although the juvenile court may have discussed its rea-
soning during the hearing, it must provide written findings
in the order. Id.Here, the court wrote on the uniform commitment
judgment, “cannot be maintained in the community.” That
finding fails to explain why it is in youth’s best interests to
be placed in OYA custody. While it could perhaps lead to
750 State v. D. B. O.
an explanation, “it is not an explanation itself” concerning
what is best for youth. Id.In particular, the court’s written finding is too
ambiguous to satisfy the requirement for “an explanation of
why it would be in the best interests of youth to be commit-
ted to a custodial setting rather than to remain with family
or in the community.” Id. The finding may be based on a
general lack of community placement options. Or perhaps
it implies that there is no community placement available
from which the court could be confident youth would not
run away. If either of these are the case, then the finding
explains why it is desirable—in varying degrees, depending
on its intended meaning—as an administrative matter, for
youth to be placed in OYA custody, but it does not explain
why that choice “is most likely to lead to a positive outcome
for” youth. M. A., 227 Or App at 183-84.
Another possibility is that, as the state contends,
the finding means that youth has specific needs that can be
met only in OYA custody. If that is the case, OYA custody
may be not only administratively desirable but also neces-
sary for youth to have his needs met. However, if so, the
juvenile court does not explain that conclusion or what those
needs are in the commitment order. To remedy that defi-
ciency, the state proposes that we should also consider the
probation conditions from the dispositional judgment in our
decision. However, those probation conditions are require-
ments for youth to “obey” and provide potential future rea-
sons to revoke probation. They do not necessarily speak to
what is in youth’s best interests as far as OYA custody, and
if the juvenile court intended those conditions to provide an
explanation concerning youth’s best interests, it must pro-
vide such reasoning in connection with its ORS 419C.478(1)
findings.
As we recognized in S. D. M., the legislature imposed
the findings requirement to ensure that the juvenile court
takes time to consider the positive and negative impacts a
decision may have on the adjudicated youth. 318 Or App at
421. Committing a 12-year-old to OYA custody for up to 13
years—more than the length of his life so far—is a deci-
sion that needs to be carefully examined for the significant
Cite as 325 Or App 746 (2023) 751
ramifications the commitment will have on youth and his
rehabilitation. By providing a written explanation for why
it is in the youth’s best interests, the juvenile court shows
that it engaged in a careful evaluation before making such a
significant decision. “Cannot be maintained in the commu-
nity” is too ambiguous to explain why commitment is in this
youth’s best interests as required by ORS 419C.478(1).
Vacated and remanded for written findings under
ORS 419C.478(1).