In this juvenile dependency case, mother appeals two judgments involving her son T. The first, entered in the trial court on August 14,2009, asserts jurisdiction over T and commits him to the custody of the Department of Human Services (the jurisdictional judgment); the second, entered on September 17,2009, approves a permanency plan of adoption for T (the permanency judgment). In her first assignment of error, mother challenges the jurisdictional judgment on the ground that the allegations contained in the dependency petition are legally insufficient to establish jurisdiction. We reject that assignment of error without discussion. In her second assignment, mother challenges the permanency judgment, arguing that the court failed to make the findings necessary to authorize the change in the permanency plan for T from reunification to adoption. We agree with mother that the permanency judgment failed to include the determination required under ORS 419B.476(5)(d). Accordingly, we reverse and remand the permanency judgment and otherwise affirm.
If, after a permanency hearing, the court concludes that the permanency plan for the child should be adoption, the permanency judgment must include the court’s determination that “none of the circumstances enumerated in ORS 419B.498(2) is applicable.”
State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. J. F. B.,
It is indisputable that the permanency judgment in this case does not explicitly include the determination required by ORS 419B.476(5)(d) and, derivatively, ORS
*71
419B.498(2). Nor, as the state suggests, can we infer that determination from the “judgment as a whole.”
See Dept. of Human Services v. G. E.,
Permanency judgment entered September 17, 2009, reversed and remanded; otherwise affirmed.