316 Or. App. 820
Or. Ct. App.2022Background
- Juvenile dependency proceedings in Clackamas County; mother (M. D.) was ordered to undergo a court‑ordered psychological evaluation.
- The juvenile court based the order on ORS 419B.337(2) after finding a “rational relationship” between the jurisdictional bases and the evaluation.
- The juvenile court did not consider the separate statutory requirements set out in ORS 419B.387 when ordering the evaluation.
- Mother appealed, arguing the court plainly erred by failing to apply ORS 419B.387, which governs authority to order psychological evaluations in dependency cases.
- While the appeal was pending, this court decided Dept. of Human Services v. W. C. T., which harmonized two lines of cases and fashioned a four‑part standard incorporating requirements from both ORS 419B.337(2) and ORS 419B.387.
- The Court of Appeals held the failure to consider ORS 419B.387 was plain error under the law as clarified by W. C. T., exercised its discretion to correct the error, and vacated and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner (DHS) Argument | Appellant (M. D.) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court may order a psychological evaluation without applying ORS 419B.387 | The court could rely on ORS 419B.337(2) and the “rational relationship” finding to order the evaluation | The court must apply ORS 419B.387’s requirements before ordering a psychological evaluation | Court: Error to order evaluation without considering ORS 419B.387; vacated and remanded (plain error) |
| Whether the unpreserved challenge can be reviewed on appeal (plain‑error review) | Enforcement of preservation rules; prior conflicting precedent meant preservation should bar relief | Error is reviewable as plain error because law clarified in W. C. T. and the error is obvious and apparent | Court exercised discretion to correct the plain legal error given gravity and intrusiveness of evaluation |
Key Cases Cited
- Dept. of Human Services v. W. C. T., 314 Or App 743 (harmonized two lines of authority; adopted four‑part standard for court‑ordered psychological evaluations)
- State v. Perez, 340 Or 310 (plain‑error standard and preservation principles)
- State v. Ulery, 366 Or 500 (factors for exercising discretion to correct plain error)
- State v. Jury, 185 Or App 132 (preservation and comity considerations)