Mother appeals from judgments in which the juvenile court ruled that mothers children were dependent pursuant to ORS 419B.100(1) and in need of the courts protection through wardship, and orders in which the court denied mothers motions to set aside those jurisdictional judgments. Mothers assignments of error are directed exclusively to the orders denying her set-aside motions; she requests that we vacate and remand those orders. We address only that issue. Because the record is insufficient for meaningful appellate review, we vacate the courts orders denying mothers motions to set aside the jurisdictional judgments and remand to the juvenile court for clarification of its ruling.
The Department of Human Services filed dependency petitions regarding mothers children. At some point in the litigation, the juvenile court set the matter over and scheduled a “status conference” for the parties to set a new trial date. The court ordered mother to call in for the status conference. When mother did not do so, the court held an in-absentia trial on the departments petitions and ruled that mothers children were within its dependency jurisdiction.
Mother timely moved to set aside the resulting jurisdictional judgments pursuant to ORS 419B.923, averring—through declaration of counsel—that mother had “misunderstood that her appearance was required” at the status conference because “her understanding of the court date * * * was for attorneys to simply set a date for an all-day trial.” Without holding a hearing, the court denied mothers motions. The only memorial of the juvenile courts ruling, or reasoning, is a hand-written notation in the upper corner of a document, reading:
“Denied! [Initials] 1/29/21
“Mom advised on record on 12/17[/]20 to call in at 7:45 A.M. On 12/22/20, mother failed to call in at that time despite given call in info. on record on 12/17/20.”
ORS 419B.923 provides a mechanism for a parent to move to set aside a judgment on the grounds of “excusable neglect.” A parents nonappearance at a scheduled hearing can qualify as excusable neglect. Dept. of Human Services v. T. M. B., 276 Or. App. 641, 369 P.3d 419, rev. den., 359 Or. 667, 379 P.3d 523 (2016); Dept. of Human Services v. K. M. J., 272 Or. App. 506, 356 P.3d 1132, rev. den., 358 Or. 145, 363 P.3d 1287 (2015); Dept. of Human Services v. K. M. P., 251 Or. App. 268, 271, 284 P.3d 519 (2012).
As we explained in K. M. P., when faced with a motion to set aside a judgment based on excusable neglect, a juvenile court must engage in a “two-step, sequential analysis.” Id. The first step requires the court to “determine whether the parent has established as a matter of law that the nonappearance resulted from excusable neglect.” Id. “[I]f the parent makes the predicate showing of excusable neglect, the court ‘retains some range of discretion’ to determine whether, in the totality of the circumstances, to allow the motion.” Id. at 271-72, 284 P.3d 519 (quoting State ex rel. Dept. of Human Services v. G. R., 224 Or. App. 133, 143, 197 P.3d 61 (2008)).
The standard of appellate review varies depending upon where in that two-step analytical process the juvenile court grounds its decision. We review a juvenile courts ruling as to whether a parents nonappearance at a hearing constitutes excusable neglect for errors of law. However, we review a juvenile courts ruling denying a motion to set aside, despite a finding of excusable neglect, for an abuse of discretion. K. M. P., 251 Or. App. at 272, 284 P.3d 519; G. R., 224 Or. App. at 139-40, 197 P.3d 61.
In this case, the trial courts bare notation in the upper corner of a document, without more, and without any reasoning expressed on the record, does not sufficiently inform us where on the two-step process the juvenile courts decision lies. Accordingly, we cannot determine which standard of review to apply to the courts ruling. We therefore remand to the trial court for clarification and explanation of its ruling, so that meaningful appellate review can occur.
Orders denying motions to set aside jurisdictional judgments vacated; remanded for further proceedings.
PER CURIAM