State v. A. L. M., 469 P.3d 244

Youth (age 15 at the time) repeatedly sexually assaulted two young relatives (ages 8 and 10) over several days: anal penetration, forced oral sex, forced masturbation, pornography, and bribery with marijuana and games.
Juvenile petition charged acts equivalent to multiple third-degree sodomy and attempted first-degree sodomy; youth admitted to two counts of attempted first-degree sodomy and was adjudicated delinquent.
Disposition: 36 months' probation, mandated sex-offender treatment with Jeff Rex, and polygraph testing; youth completed treatment and probation tasks, including apology letters and passing some polygraphs.
Polygraph and supervision record: an early polygraph reflected deception about one victim; later polygraph indicated full disclosure. Youth admitted past marijuana use and had intermittent positive THC urinalyses while on supervision.
Near the end of juvenile jurisdiction, youth sought relief from sex-offender reporting under ORS 163A.030; juvenile court held an evidentiary hearing and denied relief, ordering reporting under ORS 163A.025.
Juvenile court emphasized the severity, repeated nature, victim vulnerability and age disparity, youth's position of trust, and marijuana use tied to the offenses; appellate court affirmed, holding the record could support the juvenile court’s factual findings.

Issue	Youth's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the juvenile court erred in denying relief under ORS 163A.030 (whether youth proved by clear and convincing evidence that he is rehabilitated and not a public-safety threat)	Youth: Completed probation and sex-offender treatment; record shows rehabilitation and no contrary evidence, so relief required.	State: Evidence did not compel that finding; severity, repeated abuse of very young, vulnerability, and marijuana use justified denial.	Affirmed — a reasonable juvenile court could find the evidence did not clearly and convincingly establish rehabilitation and lack of threat.
Proper appellate standard of review for youth's burden and trial-court finding (relying on Patterson v. Foote)	Youth: Patterson requires reviewing de novo whether the trial court correctly found youth failed to meet his burden.	State: Ordinary sufficiency review applies — ask whether evidence could support the juvenile court’s factual findings.	Court refused to extend Patterson; applied ordinary sufficiency review (will not reverse unless record would compel the opposite finding).

Patterson v. Foote, 226 Or App 104 (2009) (interpreted a different reporting-relief statute and discussed standard for proving rehabilitation)
Husk v. Adelman, 281 Or App 378 (2016) (appellate review limited to whether record supports trial court findings)
State v. Johnson, 335 Or 511 (2003) (appellate courts bound by trial-court acceptance or rejection of evidence)
State v. J. D. S., 242 Or App 445 (2011) (clear-and-convincing standard and sufficiency review explained)
State v. T. C., 268 Or App 615 (2015) (compelled-finding standard when reviewing whether evidence requires a particular result)
Dept. of Human Services v. T. J., 302 Or App 531 (2020) (assume correctness of trial-court factual findings if record supports them)
State v. Civil, 283 Or App 395 (2017) (discussing when to overrule prior statutory construction)