1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. P.3d
  4. 449 P.3d
  5. 449 P.3d 529 (2019)
 

MATTER OF M. M.

A169525 (Control) A169526 A169527 A169528 A169529 A169530 A169531 A169532 A169533 A169534.

449 P.3d 529 (2019)

298 Or.App. 545

In the MATTER OF M. M., a Child. Department of Human Services, Petitioner-Respondent, v. T. M. and A. M., Appellants. In the Matter of J. M., a Child. Department of Human Services, Petitioner-Respondent, v. T. M. and A. M., Appellants. In the Matter of M. M., a Child. Department of Human Services, Petitioner-Respondent, v. T. M. and A. M., Appellants. In the Matter of K. M., a Child. Department of Human Services, Petitioner-Respondent, v. T. M. and A. M., Appellants. In the Matter of J. M., a Child. Department of Human Services, Petitioner-Respondent, v. T. M. and A. M., Appellants. In the Matter of M. M., a Child. Department of Human Services, Petitioner-Respondent, v. T. M. and A. M., Appellants. In the Matter of J. M., a Child. Department of Human Services, Petitioner-Respondent, v. T. M. and A. M., Appellants. In the Matter of M. M., a Child. Department of Human Services, Petitioner-Respondent, v. T. M. and A. M., Appellants. In the Matter of K. M., a Child. Department of Human Services, Petitioner-Respondent, v. T. M. and A. M., Appellants. In the Matter of J. M., a Child. Department of Human Services, Petitioner-Respondent, v. T. M. and A. M., Appellants.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

July 17, 2019.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Holly Telerant, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant A. M. Also on the briefs was Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services.

Inge D. Wells, Assistant Attorney General, Eugene, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.

Kenneth A. Kreuscher filed the brief for appellant T. M.

Before Hadlock, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge.

In this consolidated juvenile dependency case involving five siblings, both parents appeal permanency judgments that reflect a change of the children's permanency plans from reunification to adoption. In their multiple assignments of error, parents raise essentially two arguments. First, parents point to the significant delay between the end...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases