State v. D.J.

Under ORS 419.626(3)(a), a juvenile court specifically states “why” it ordered a youth's continued out-of-home placement if the findings permit an appellate court to determine, through meaningful review, that the disposition was “necessary.”

In this juvenile delinquency case, Youth assigned error to the sufficiency of a juvenile court order that approved Youth’s placement in the custody of the Oregon Youth Authority (OYA). On appeal, Youth argued to the juvenile court’s factual findings did not satisfy ORS 419.626(3)(a) because the court did not expressly refer to Youth’s proposed placement with his grandmother or expressly describe his continuing the OYA placement as “necessary.” Under ORS 419.626(3)(a), a juvenile court sufficiently states “why” it ordered a youth's continued out-of-home placement if the findings permit an appellate court to determine, through meaningful review, that the disposition was “necessary.” The juvenile court’s factual findings were “deliberate and explicitly justified [its] decision.” Therefore, the Court held that ORS 419.626(3)(a) did not require the juvenile court to use the word “necessary,” or to expressly refer to other possible placements. Affirmed.