Department of Human Services v. J.M.R.

In plain error analysis, the argument on appeal must not be meaningfully different from the argument made in the trial court.

Mother appealed the denial of her motion to dismiss juvenile court jurisdiction over her five-year-old daughter, on the basis of an allegation that, “if left untreated, the mother’s mental health interferes with her ability to safely parent.” Mother argues that, without any evidence of her mental health issues being untreated, the department did not meet its burden of proof to support the asserted basis for jurisdiction, and that the juvenile court erred by admitting expert testimony and evaluations from two witnesses without requiring the department to establish a sufficient basis for qualifying those witnesses as experts. To the mother’s second issue, the court held that the evidence was sufficient to qualify the witnesses as experts. To her first issue, the court held that the issue was unpreserved because the mother’s argument in the court below differed substantially from her argument on appeal. AFFIRMED.