Vacated and remanded for written findings under ORS 419C · Decided 2025-02-12
No. 93 February 12, 2025 769
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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 S. L. D., fka S. L. D.,
a Youth.
STATE OF OREGON,
Respondent,
v.
S. L. D.,
fka S. L. D.,
Appellant.
Clackamas County Circuit Court
22JU03172; A181142
Colleen F. Gilmartin, Judge.
Argued and submitted January 14, 2025.
Erica Hayne Friedman argued the cause for appellant.
Also on the briefs was Youth, Rights & Justice.
Jonathan N. Schildt, Assistant Attorney General, argued
the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F.
Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General.
Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Kamins, Judge, and
Jacquot, Judge.
TOOKEY, P. J.
Vacated and remanded for written findings under ORS
419C.478(1).
770 State v. S. L. D.
TOOKEY, P. J.
In this juvenile delinquency case, youth appeals a
judgment finding him to be within the jurisdiction of the
juvenile court and placing him in the custody of the Oregon
Youth Authority (OYA) for a period not to exceed 36 months.
Youth raises two assignments of error; we address only the
second. In his second assignment of error, youth contends,
and the state concedes, that the juvenile court failed to comply with the ORS 419C.478(1) requirement of “includ[ing]
written findings describing why it is in the best interests of
the adjudicated youth to be placed with [OYA].” We agree
with and accept the state’s concession.1 Therefore, we vacate
the judgment and remand.
As noted, ORS 419C.478(1) requires that, when placing an adjudicated youth in the legal custody of the OYA, the
juvenile court “shall include written findings describing why
it is in the best interests of the adjudicated youth to be placed
with [OYA].” In this case, the juvenile court’s written findings were limited to a notation on the judgment form citing
the “significance of [the] offense and [the] resulting death of
another” in support of youth’s commitment to OYA custody.
The juvenile court’s findings in the written judgment did not satisfy ORS 419C.478(1). That is because the
written judgment did not demonstrate that the juvenile
court fulfilled the legislature’s intent “that the juvenile court
takes time to consider the positive and negative impacts a
decision may have on the adjudicated youth.” See State v.
D. B. O.,
(2024) (“Findings that are ambiguous as to whether they are
directed to the youth’s best interests … will not survive
appellate review and will result in remand for additional
findings.”).
1
That conclusion obviates the need for us to address youth’s first assignment
of error, in which he contends that the trial court erred in failing to apply the
correct legal standard in determining whether OYA custody was in youth’s “best
interests” under ORS 419C.478(1). See State v. D. B. O.,
(2023) (so resolving a similar case in which “the court’s written
finding is too ambiguous” despite the juvenile court having “discussed its reasoning during the hearing”).
Nonprecedential Memo Op:
337 Or App 769
(2025) 771
On remand, the juvenile court should consider
whether placement in OYA custody is in youth’s “best interests” for purposes of ORS 419C.478(1). That determination
is “child-centered” and focused on whether OYA custody is
“likely to lead to a positive outcome” for youth. D. B. O.,
325
Or App at 748, 750
(internal quotation marks omitted); see
also State v. T. J. L.,
(2024)
(juvenile court may consider “accountability” not as punishment, but in the sense “that taking personal responsibility
for wrongdoing is important to personal growth and reformation, which is in line with the goal of rehabilitation”).
Vacated and remanded for written findings under
ORS 419C.478(1).
