State v. D. L. C. M.

No. 688                July 30, 2025                     323

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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 D. L. C. M,
                        a Youth.
                 STATE OF OREGON,
                      Respondent,
                           v.
                      D. L. C. M.,
                       Appellant.
          Washington County Circuit Court
   23JU04589, 23JU02636; A183773 (Control), A183774

   Thomas A. Goldman, Judge pro tempore.
   Submitted June 13, 2025.
   Jedediah Peterson and Equal Justice Law filed the brief
for appellant.
   Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Patricia G. Rincon, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
   Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.
   EGAN, J.
   Vacated and remanded for written findings under ORS
419C.478(1).
324                                                  State v. D. L. C. M.

           EGAN, J.
         Youth appeals in this consolidated delinquency
case, assigning error to the juvenile court’s failure to make
required written findings when it placed youth in the legal
custody of the Oregon Youth Authority. We vacate and
remand for the juvenile court to make those findings.1
         Youth was on probation in both cases. The juvenile
court subsequently revoked probation and ordered that he be
placed with the Oregon Youth Authority. ORS 419C.478(1)
provides that a court placing a youth in the legal custody
of the Oregon Youth Authority or Department of Human
Services must “include written findings describing why it
is in the best interests of the adjudicated youth to be placed
with the youth authority or the department.” We review the
sufficiency of the juvenile court’s written findings for legal
error. State v. D. B. O., 

, 

(2023).
        Youth contends that the judgments here provided
an account of youth’s poor behavior on probation, but did not
contain the required written findings explaining why placement with the youth authority was in youth’s best interests.
The state concedes the error. We accept the state’s concession and vacate and remand the judgments for written findings that satisfy ORS 419C.478(1).
       Vacated and remanded for written findings under
ORS 419C.478(1).




   1
     As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge
panel.