Dept. of Human Services v. K. H. H.

The interpretation of “reasonable time” is evaluated as a matter of law and thus must be looked at for abuse of discretion. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. D.J., 215 Or. App. 146, 154-155, 168 P.3d 798 (2007).

Father appealed the juvenile court’s ruling, which denied his motion to “set aside a jurisdictional judgement” regarding his child. Father assigned error to the juvenile court’s holding that his motion was not filed timely and argued that the juvenile court abused its discretion in construing what “reasonable time” meant. In response, DHS argued that the juvenile court was well within its power to deny Father’s motion. The interpretation of “reasonable time” is evaluated as a matter of law and thus must be looked at for abuse of discretion. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. D.J., 215 Or. App. 146, 154-155, 168 P.3d 798 (2007).  The Court held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Father’s motion because the “ruling was not clearly against the evidence or reason.” Further, Father did not provide any reason for the 20-month delay, and, additionally, Father failed to give facts which would allow the juvenile court to grant his motion. Affirmed.