Dept. of Human Services v. B. F. ( 2022 )

536
Submitted February 7; jurisdictional judgment affirmed, dispositional judgment
vacated and remanded as to order that father submit to a psychological
evaluation, otherwise affirmed March 23, 2022
In the Matter of P. F.,
a Child.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
B. F.,
Appellant.
Deschutes County Circuit Court
20JU06268; A176139
507 P3d 350
Father appeals a juvenile court judgment asserting dependency jurisdic-
tion over his child. He contends that the juvenile court failed to provide him
with actual notice of the trial readiness hearing and then, when he failed to
appear, wrongly adjudicated the dependency petition in his absence and made
his child a ward of the court. Alternatively, he contends that the juvenile
court erred in ordering him to complete certain evaluations and other tasks.
Held: Father’s claim of error regarding notice was not adequately preserved,
thus limiting review to plain error. The record is ambiguous as to whether father
received actual notice from the court, which impedes plain-error review. In any
event, the Court of Appeals declined to exercise its discretion to correct any plain
error, because it was clear from father’s counsel’s statements at the beginning
of the hearing that father knew of the hearing and chose not to attend. As for
father’s other assignments of error, the Court of Appeals accepted the state’s con-
cession that the juvenile court plainly erred by ordering father to submit to a
psychological evaluation without making the necessary findings.
Jurisdictional judgment affirmed; dispositional judgment vacated and
remanded as to order that father submit to a psychological evaluation; otherwise
affirmed.
Bethany P. Flint, Judge.
Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section,
and Joel C. Duran, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public
Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Inge D. Wells, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Cite as 318 Or App 536 (2022) 537
Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge, and
Armstrong, Senior Judge.
AOYAGI, J.
Jurisdictional judgment affirmed; dispositional judgment
vacated and remanded as to order that father submit to a
psychological evaluation; otherwise affirmed.
538 Dept. of Human Services v. B. F.
AOYAGI, J.
Father appeals a juvenile court judgment assert-
ing dependency jurisdiction over his child. Father contends
that the juvenile court failed to provide him with actual
notice of the trial readiness hearing and then, when he
failed to appear, wrongly adjudicated the dependency peti-
tion in his absence and made his child a ward of the court.
Alternatively, father contends that the court erred in order-
ing him to complete certain evaluations and other tasks. For
the following reasons, we vacate and remand the portion of
the dispositional judgment that orders father to submit to a
psychological evaluation, and we otherwise affirm.
We briefly describe the relevant procedural facts.
The Department of Human Services (DHS) filed a depen-
dency petition regarding father’s child. Father was sum-
moned and personally appeared at a status conference on
December 7 and at a trial readiness hearing on January 11.
Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, both proceedings were
held by telephone. At the December 7 status conference,
father was told the consequences of not appearing for the
trial readiness hearing. At the January 11 hearing, every-
one appeared, but mother requested a trial continuance, to
which no one objected, and all parties agreed to resetting
the trial dates to April 28, 29, and 30. The court then set
a trial readiness hearing for April 19. The court repeated
all of the upcoming dates on the record, and it explained to
the parties the consequences of failing to appear. The court
then asked the parties to confirm that they had heard and
written down the dates. Neither father nor mother were
heard to respond. With the court unable to determine why
no responses were heard, DHS’s counsel offered to prepare
an order with the dates for the court to mail to the parties.
The court agreed that that was a good idea, given the lack
of verbal confirmation, and said that it would watch for the
order. The record contains no indication that the intended
written order was ever prepared or mailed, and the state
acknowledges the lack of a written order.
On April 19, father failed to appear for the trial
readiness hearing. Father’s counsel represented to the court
that he had “been in conversations with” father, had given
Cite as 318 Or App 536 (2022) 539
father the call-in information, and had expected father to
call in. Father’s counsel further stated that there had been
“some discussion” with father about his possibly waiving
trial rights, that he had sent father the form to do so, but
that he had been “unable to confirm with [father] today”
whether father had decided to waive. In father’s absence,
the juvenile court granted DHS’s request to proceed with its
prima facie case, adjudicated the dependency petition, and
made father’s child a ward of the court. The court imme-
diately proceeded to disposition, including issuing various
orders directed to father.
Father appeals. In his first three assignments of
error, father contends that the juvenile court erred by not
giving him actual notice of the April 19 trial readiness hear-
ing, by nonetheless proceeding to adjudicate the petition in
his absence, and by then making the child a ward of the
court. We reject those arguments as explained below.
Although father’s counsel could not participate in
the actual hearing in father’s absence, Dept. of Human
Services v. S. C. T., 281 Or App 246, 261, 380 P3d 1211
(2016), rev den, 360 Or 752; 360 Or 851 (2017), father’s coun-
sel was present at the scheduled start time for the hearing,
and he was able to tell the court whether father intended to
be present or, conversely, alert the court to a potential notice
problem. We therefore agree with DHS that father’s claims
of error based on lack of notice needed to be preserved, that
they were not, and that our review is limited to plain error.
See ORAP 5.45(1) (allowing for “plain error” review).
On this record, it is unknown whether, at the
January 11 hearing, father heard the trial-readiness date
and the court’s warning about failure to appear; if so, he
received notice. It is possible that father heard but did not
respond. It is possible that father heard and responded but
that the court could not hear him due to a technical issue.
It is possible that father lost his connection or otherwise
could not hear the court. Such uncertainty is problematic,
because one requirement for error to be “plain” is that it is
not necessary to go outside the record or select among com-
peting inferences. State v. Terry, 333 Or 163, 180, 37 P3d 157
(2001), cert den, 536 US 910 (2002). In any event, plain-error
540 Dept. of Human Services v. B. F.
review is discretionary, and we would not exercise our dis-
cretion here. It is entirely possible that father heard the
court say the April 19 hearing date and the consequences of
failing to appear. Father also had at least some awareness
of the consequences of failing to appear for a trial readi-
ness hearing, in that he had been told those consequences
as to the January 11 trial readiness hearing. Most impor-
tantly, father’s counsel’s statements to the court on April 19
make clear that father was aware of the April 19 hearing
and had been actively deciding whether to attend it or waive
his rights. That fact weighs decisively against exercising
discretion.
We turn to the remaining nine assignments of error.
Father argues that the juvenile court erred by ordering
father to complete a drug and alcohol evaluation; provide an
address or reliable phone number to the DHS caseworker;
attend all court hearings; complete a psychological evalua-
tion; complete a mental health evaluation; obtain safe and
stable housing; sign information releases; attend scheduled
visitations with the child; and take random urinalysis tests
upon request.
The state concedes that the court plainly erred in
ordering father to submit to a psychological evaluation—the
subject of father’s seventh assignment of error—because
the court did not make the findings required by Dept. of
Human Services v. W. C. T., 314 Or App 743, 776, 501 P3d
44 (2021), which was decided after the hearing in this case
but is controlling for purposes of our plain-error determi-
nation. See State v. Jury, 185 Or App 132, 136, 57 P3d 970
(2002), rev den, 335 Or 504 (2003) (explaining that we apply
the law in effect at the time of appeal). We agree that the
court erred,1 and we vacate and remand that portion of the
judgment.
Except for that issue, in challenging the court orders
directed to him, we understand father to be arguing that
1
The parties disagree on preservation with respect to the fourth through
twelfth assignments of error. As to the conceded error, the disposition would be
the same regardless of preservation, so we need not resolve preservation. And
we need not resolve preservation as to the remaining issues, because, as will be
explained in the text, father’s remaining arguments depend on a future change
in the law.
Cite as 318 Or App 536 (2022) 541
our current case law, including but not limited to W. C. T.,
is wrong. There are at least two cases currently pending in
the Supreme Court that may be relevant to that argument.
See Dept. of Human Services v. F. J. M., 312 Or App 301,
493 P3d 59, rev allowed, 368 Or 510 (2021); Dept. of Human
Services v. L. S., 310 Or App 382, 483 P3d 17, rev allowed,
368 Or 510 (2021). Father has not asked us to disavow any
of our recent decisions ourselves, nor would we. See Dept. of
Human Services v. N. S. C., 316 Or App 755, 758, 503 P3d
1277 (2022) (stating, regarding W. C. T., that “[w]e decline to
revisit an en banc decision of this court, especially one that
was highly divided and on which the ink is barely dry”).
Father’s remaining arguments are therefore not so much
directed to us as they are meant to preserve his position in
the event that the Supreme Court changes the law in the
future. As such, we acknowledge those arguments but need
not address them individually.2
Jurisdictional judgment affirmed; dispositional judg-
ment vacated and remanded as to order that father submit
to a psychological evaluation; otherwise affirmed.
2
In the concluding paragraph of his combined argument on the fourth
through twelfth assignments of error, father asserts that none of the things that
he was ordered to do qualify as “treatment or training” under ORS 419B.387. We
understand that argument to be subsumed in his larger argument regarding the
state of our case law. To the extent it is intended as an independent argument, it
is not developed, so we do not address it.