State v. A. R. H.

536                  October 16, 2024                No. 740

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
    pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
         except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
                 STATE OF OREGON

               In the Matter of A. R. H.,
                        a Youth.
                 STATE OF OREGON,
                      Respondent,
                           v.
                       A. R. H.,
                       Appellant.
            Washington County Circuit Court
         22JU02227; A180705 (Control), A180706

   Thomas A. Goldman, Judge pro tempore.
   Submitted September 24, 2024.
   Erica Hayne Friedman and Youth, Rights & Justice filed
the brief for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Patricia G. Rincon, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, Egan, Judge, and Joyce,
Judge.
   PER CURIAM
   Vacated and remanded for          findings   under   ORS
419C.478(1); otherwise affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 

 (2024)                        537

          PER CURIAM

         The juvenile court revoked youth’s probation
and placed him in the legal custody of the Oregon Youth
Authority (OYA), with a recommendation that he be placed
in an OYA program other than a correctional facility. In
its judgment, the court made written findings that OYA
custody is in youth’s best interests because “[d]rug issues,
school issues, 6 times on EM/HD, multiple stints in DEL,
HH failure, discharged from TX, FAA failure, multiple violations while case pending, [and] cont[inued] violations after
jurisdiction.”1 On appeal, in his sole assignment of error,
youth argues that those written findings are inadequate
under ORS 419C.478(1), which requires “written findings
describing why it is in the best interests of the adjudicated
youth to be placed with” OYA. The state responds that the
written findings are legally sufficient.

         This case is very similar to State v. E. S., 

, 

 (2024), which was decided after the parties
filed their briefs. In E. S., the juvenile court revoked a youth’s
probation and committed the youth to OYA custody, making
written findings that OYA custody was in the youth’s best
interests because “DEL, Harkins House, Electronic monitoring, Psychological evaluation, Sex offender treatment,
Drug and alcohol use, Mental health issues, Multiple probation violations, [and] Discharge summary indicates ongoing
and concerning thinking errors.” Id. at 352-53. On appeal,
we agreed with the youth that those findings did not satisfy ORS 419C.478(1). Id. at 353. They “appear[ed] to catalogue reasons that youth has proved difficult to maintain
in the community—listing services that youth has received
and issues that youth has continued to have—rather than
describing why it is in youth’s best interests to be placed with
OYA.” Id. at 353-54 (emphasis in original). They were essentially a more detailed version of the “cannot be maintained
in the community” finding that we found insufficient in
State v. D. B. O., 

, 

 (2023).
E. S., 

.

    1
      We understand “EM/HD” to mean electronic monitor home detention, “HH”
to mean Harkins House, and “FAA” to mean formal accountability agreement.
538                                             State v. A. R. H.

         The written findings in this case similarly fail to
satisfy ORS 419C.478(1). As we explained in E. S.:
      “Under ORS 419C.478(1) and our case law construing
  it, the juvenile court must direct its written findings to
  the specific issue of why it is in a youth’s best interests to
  be placed with OYA. Findings that are ambiguous as to
  whether they are directed to the youth’s best interests—
  versus being directed to what is in the best interests of the
  community, what is in the best interests of other individuals, what is administratively convenient, what is a justifiable punishment for a probation violation, or the like—will
  not survive appellate review and will result in remand for
  additional findings.”

 We therefore vacate and remand for additional written
findings.
       Vacated and remanded for findings under ORS
419C.478(1); otherwise affirmed.