Categories: Oregon Court of Appeals Opinions

STATE v. SMITH, 62 Or. App. 194 (1983)

659 P.2d 1020

In the Matter of A., a child. STATE ex rel JUVENILE DEPARTMENT OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, Respondent, v. SMITH, Appellant.

3970; CA A24428Oregon Court of Appeals.Argued and submitted December 17, 1982
Appeal dismissed March 9, 1983

Appeal from Circuit Court, Douglas County, Charles S. Woodrich, Judge.

Sharon L. Hockett, Roseburg, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief was Verden L. Hockett, Jr., P. C., Roseburg.

William Nessly, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, Stanton F. Long, Deputy Attorney General, William F. Gary, Solicitor General, and Daryl D. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, Salem.

Before Gillette, Presiding Judge, and Warden, and Young, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Appeal dismissed.

Page 195

PER CURIAM

On the basis that the state had carried its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, an order was entered terminating parental rights on March 18, 1982. Mother filed a notice of appeal on April 22, 1982. The notice of appeal was not timely, ORS 19.026(1), and we must dismiss the appeal.[1]

Appeal dismissed.

[1] After the March 18, 1982 order was entered, the United States Supreme Court decided Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S Ct 1388, 71 L Ed 2d 599 (1982). The state then moved the court to reevaluate the order to determine whether the evidence also met the standard of proof required by Santosky. On April 26, 1982, nunc pro tunc April 19, 1982, the court determined that the petition for termination had been established by clear and convincing evidence. The appeal from the March 18, 1982 order is the only matter before us, we express no opinion as to the trial court’s authority to enter its later order of April 26, 1982. We note, however, that this latter order was entered after appellant filed her notice of appeal.

Page 196

jdjungle