Department of Human Services v. L. B., 246 Or. App. 169

DHS sought permanency decisions for S.G.R.L.-L. and M.A.L., children in state custody, against mother L.B. (L.L.).
Juvenile court changed each child’s plan from reunification to adoption after a permanency hearing.
Judgments lacked the required explicit finding under ORS 419B.476(5)(d) about whether there are compelling reasons against terminating parental rights.
Mother did not raise the ORS 419B.476(5)(d) issue at the hearing and DHS conceded the deficiency in the judgments.
Forms used for judgments were confusing and did not clearly reflect the required findings; the court inferred the predicate findings from the orders.
Court reversed and remanded to correct the judgments to include explicit ORS 419B.476(5)(d) findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the judgments satisfy ORS 419B.476(5)(d) findings	Mother argues the required finding is missing.	DHS contends error but would be corrected on remand; preservation disputed.	Judgments reversed and remanded for explicit findings.
Preservation and plain error review	Mother had no practical opportunity to object pre-judgment; error plain on face.	DHS asserts preservation or harmless error; argues no plain error review warranted.	Court exercised discretion to correct plainly erroneous judgments.
Effect of confusing judgment forms	Confusing form obscured whether compelling reasons were found or denied.	Forms were provided; error arises from lack of explicit findings, not form setup.	Judgments invalid for missing explicit ORS 419B.476(5)(d) findings.

State ex rel. Dept. of Human Services v. J.N., 225 Or. App. 139 (2009) (review where findings missing but could be corrected on appeal)
Dept. of Human Services v. M.A., 227 Or. App. 172 (2009) (home-study findings and statutory timing for orders after hearing)
State v. Clay, 235 Or. App. 26 (2010) (plain error correction by reviewing court)