Background
The Oregon Department of Human Services sought a permanent guardianship for 13-year-old A. J. L., who had been a ward of the juvenile court since September 2024. The proposed guardian was the child’s current resource parent.
At the guardianship hearing, mother’s counsel asked whether she had concerns about the proposed guardian. The juvenile court sustained an objection to testimony from mother about the guardian’s suitability and later entered the permanent-guardianship judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. Mother’s arguments based on her statutory right to participate in hearings and the court’s duty to determine the proposed guardian’s suitability were unpreserved because, in the juvenile court, she argued only that her testimony concerned the child’s best interests.
As to the preserved best-interests argument, mother did not describe the substance of her excluded testimony in an offer of proof. Without that information, the appellate court could not determine whether the exclusion was prejudicial and therefore did not reach whether the juvenile court erred.
Key Takeaways
- An argument that excluded testimony concerns a child’s best interests does not preserve distinct statutory theories that were not presented to the juvenile court.
- A party challenging the exclusion of evidence must make an offer of proof sufficient to show what the evidence would have established.
- Because the record did not permit a prejudice analysis, the court affirmed without deciding whether excluding mother’s testimony was erroneous.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the importance of stating every legal basis for admitting evidence in juvenile proceedings and creating a record of the testimony the court excluded. Without a sufficiently specific offer of proof, an appellant may be unable to obtain review even when the excluded evidence concerns a permanent guardianship.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as that rule permits.