- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Juvenile Law
- Date Filed: 06-07-2023
- Case #: A179763
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Egan, J. for the Court; Tookey, P.J.; & Kamins, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Appellant (father) appealed a juvenile court judgment ordering him to transfer his dog to his child as an emotional support animal. At a 2022 review hearing, the child’s therapist and court-appointed special advocate (CASA) testified that the child would benefit by having Appellant’s dog in their possession because the child considered the dog “an emotional support dog.” Ultimately, the juvenile court found that the child shared a bond with the dog and ordered the dog to be transferred to the child’s care as an emotional support animal for the purpose of “counseling” under ORS 419B.385. ORS 419B.385 states that “[t]he court may order the parent or guardian [subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court] to assist the court in any reasonable manner in providing appropriate education or counseling of the ward.” (Emphasis added.) Appellant argued that the juvenile court erred in ordering him to transfer the dog because an emotional support animal is not within the definition of “counseling” as stated in ORS 419B.385. Appellant also argued that the court could not order him to transfer his personal property (i.e., the dog) to the child. The Court disagreed with Appellant’s arguments. The Court analyzed the statutory text of both ORS 419B.385 and ORS 419B.090. Looking at the plain meaning of “counseling” as used in ORS 419B.385 and Webster’s dictionary, the Court found that an emotional support animal did fall within the meaning of counseling. Further, the Court found that ORS 419B.090 supported promoting the child’s right to “safety, stability, and well-being” and the juvenile court’s order achieved this objective; therefore, the juvenile court did not err in ordering the transfer of the dog to the child as an emotional support animal. Motion to stay previous judgment/order denied; affirmed.