State v. E.S.

ORS 419.478(1) requires written findings to create a nexus between the youth’s issues and the benefits they would receive by being placed with OYA instead of remaining with their family.

Youth appealed the revocation of his probation and commitment to the Oregon Youth Authority (OYA). Youth cited two errors of assignment. First, Youth argued that the court erred in denying his request to set over the disposition. The court rejected Youth’s first assignment of error because there was no abuse in discretion to deny the setover request. Second, Youth contended that the court erred when it failed to make written findings explaining why it was in Youth’s best interest to be placed with OYA. He argued that the written findings provided by the state did not satisfy ORS 419.478(1) because it did not create a nexus between Youth’s issues and the benefits he would receive by being placed with OYA instead of remaining with his family. The court agreed that the state’s list of best-interest findings was ambiguously written and not thoughtfully constructed as required to “ensure that the juvenile court takes time to consider the positive and negative impacts” the decision would have. State v. D.O.B., 325 Or App 750, 529 P3d 1004 (2023). Therefore, the court determined that the state’s list of reasons was not acceptable to describe why it was in Youth’s best interest to be placed with OYA under ORS 419.478(1). Judgement AFFIRMED in part but VACATED and REMANDED for additional findings.