Chapter 109

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 12 WLJ 569-589 (1976)

109.010

NOTES OF DECISIONS

The duty of a parent to support his child exists independently of any court order. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Draper, 7 Or App 497, 491 P2d 215 (1971), Sup Ct review denied

General duty of support is not enforceable through support enforcement mechanism of ORS chapter 25. State ex rel Washington v. Anderson, 26 Or App 467, 552 P2d 1343 (1976)

Duty to provide care does not constitute basis for claim of emotional or psychological injury caused by failure to provide care. Burnette v. Wahl, 284 Or 705, 588 P2d 1105 (1978)

“Children” denotes relationship, not that person is minor. Haxton v. Haxton, 299 Or 616, 705 P2d 721 (1985)

Duty of parent to support dependent adult child may be enforced through direct action by child against parent. Haxton v. Haxton, 299 Or 616, 705 P2d 721 (1985)

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 22 WLR 571, 572 (1986); 69 OLR 689 (1990)

109.020

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 69 OLR 689 (1990)

109.030

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Noncustodial parental rights and duties concerning minor child on death of custodial parent, (1980) Vol 41, p 96

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 53 OLR 533-534 (1974); 26 WLR 1023 (1990)

109.041

NOTES OF DECISIONS

This section and ORS 118.100 (1) must be read in pari materiaand as such deny exemption from collateral inheritance tax to an adopted child who inherits from its natural parent. Barnum v. Dept. of Rev., 5 OTR 508 (1974)

Adoption terminates right to inherit as child of natural parent. First Nat’l Bank v. Schwerin, 54 Or App 460, 635 P2d 388 (1981)

109.053

See annotations under ORS 108.045.

109.060

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 53 OLR 533-534 (1974)

109.070

NOTES OF DECISIONS

A mother of a child who was married at the time of its birth, but who contends that the biological father of the child was a man other than her husband, may not bring an action under this section to establish paternity. Fox v. Hohenshelt, 275 Or 91, 549 P2d 1117 (1976)

In hearing on motion to terminate visitation rights, where wife testified husband was not child’s biological father, testimony could not be received for purpose of establishing paternity but was properly considered on issue of husband’s attitude toward child. Anderson and Anderson, 41 Or App 679, 598 P2d 1258 (1979), Sup Ct review denied

Although child’s paternity has not been established under ORS chapter 109, Workers’ Compensation Board may determine child’s paternity for purpose of determining mother and child’s rights to benefits. Amos v. SAIF, 72 Or App 145, 694 P2d 998 (1985)

Where mother and husband were divorced by time child was born, born-in-wedlock presumptions cannot apply. Dept. of Human Resources v. Mock, 83 Or App 1, 730 P2d 553 (1986), Sup Ct review denied

Where wife and husband dispute issue of cohabitation at conception, burden of proof is on party alleging cohabitation. Hodge and Hodge, 301 Or 433, 722 P2d 1235 (1986)

Person conclusively presumed to be legal father under pre-2005 version of statute without performance of blood test may petition court to reopen issue of paternity. State ex rel Juvenile Department v. G.W., 217 Or App 513, 177 P3d 24 (2008)

For presumption of parentage to apply, person must be biological parent. Shineovich and Kemp, 229 Or App 670, 214 P3d 29 (2009), Sup Ct review denied

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Agreement in surrogacy contract to acknowledge paternity of or adopt yet-unconceived child not judicially enforceable, (1989) Vol 46, p 221

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 44 WLR 297 (2007)

109.092

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Where filiation proceeding was filed in another state, but notice of proceeding had not been given to Oregon Vital Statistics Unit at time of adoption proceeding, putative father was barred from contesting adoption proceeding. Hylland v. Doe, 126 Or App 86, 867 P2d 551 (1994), Sup Ct review denied

109.096

NOTES OF DECISIONS

If a putative father has not come forward to initiate parent-child relationship, his liberty interest is insufficient to justify procedures necessary to apprise him of adoption proceeding under this section, and motion to dispense with notice of adoption did not violate federal due process rights of putative father. P and P v. CSD, 66 Or App 66, 673 P2d 864 (1983)

Putative father who filed filiation proceeding in another state but did not file notice with Oregon Vital Statistics Unit was not entitled to notice of adoption proceeding. Burns v. Crenshaw, 84 Or App 257, 733 P2d 922 (1987), Sup Ct review denied

Putative father otherwise qualifying for notice is not barred from objecting due to failure to qualify under notice to Vital Statistics Unit provision. Vanlue v. Collins, 98 Or App 140, 779 P2d 163 (1989), Sup Ct review denied, as modified by 99 Or App 469, 782 P2d 951 (1989); Hiskey v. Hamilton, 111 Or App 39, 824 P2d 1170 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

To set aside adoption based on mother’s fraud in adoption proceeding, father must obtain final judgment from trial court regarding mother’s fraud within one year after adoption has become final. Hallford v. Smith, 120 Or App 57, 852 P2d 249 (1993), Sup Ct review denied

Provision for putative father to establish fraud by petitioner “within one year after” entry of final decree or order sets time limit for establishing fraud, but does not require that adoption be finalized before fraud is established. Gruett v. Nesbitt, 172 Or App 113, 17 P3d 1090 (2001), on reconsideration173 Or App 225, 21 P3d 168 (2001)

109.098

NOTES OF DECISIONS

109.100

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Where statute of limitations has not run, court lacks authority to deny registration and enforcement of accrued installments under child support judgment. State ex rel State of California v. Ramirez, 167 Or App 199, 2 P3d 437 (2000)

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 69 OLR 689 (1990)

109.119

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Where custody has been awarded to nonparent, parent seeking to regain custody must show substantial change of circumstance before court may consider whether compelling reason still exists to deny custody to parent. Lear v. Lear, 124 Or App 524, 863 P2d 482 (1993)

Intervenor can have parent-child relationship and fulfill child’s psychological need for parent even though child maintains parent-child relationship with both natural parents. Sorensen and Sorensen, 138 Or App 80, 906 P2d 838 (1995)

Court may withdraw intervenor status of person having parent-child relationship where continued intervention is not in best interest of child. State ex rel State Office for Services to Children and Families v. Fuller, 156 Or App 128, 964 P2d 1140 (1998), Sup Ct review denied

In determining whether visitation with person having ongoing personal relationship with child is appropriate and in best interest of child, court must give significant weight to decision made by fit custodial parent. Harrington v. Daum, 172 Or App 188, 18 P3d 456 (2001)

Term “in part” in definition of child-parent relationship refers to when relationship existed, not to acts establishing nature of relationship. Harrington v. Daum, 172 Or App 188, 18 P3d 456 (2001)

Parent qualifies for presumption favoring award of custody to fit natural parent only if parent has or once had some minimal level of participation in care, custody and control of child. State v. Wooden, 184 Or App 537, 57 P3d 583 (2002)

Finding of substantial change in circumstances is not required for modification of nonparent visitation rights. Meader v. Meader, 194 Or App 31, 94 P3d 123 (2004), Sup Ct review denied

Whether presumption that legal parent acts in best interest of child has been rebutted is determined by evidence as whole, not by presence or absence of listed factors. O’Donnell-Lamont and Lamont, 337 Or 86, 91 P3d 721 (2004)

Legal parent’s provision of “adequate” care requires that care must be more than subsistence level, but need not rise to level of care available from nonparent. O’Donnell-Lamont and Lamont, 337 Or 86, 91 P3d 721 (2004)

Finding of circumstances detrimental to child requires serious present risk of psychological, emotional or physical harm. O’Donnell-Lamont and Lamont, 337 Or 86, 91 P3d 721 (2004)

Rebuttable presumption that legal parent acts in best interest of child adequately protects parent’s due process right under United States Constitution to have special weight given to fit parent’s determination of child’s best interest. O’Donnell-Lamont and Lamont, 337 Or 86, 91 P3d 721 (2004)

Award of attorney fees against intervenor is improper absent finding that intervenor engaged in objectively unreasonable or meritless conduct. Niman and Niman, 206 Or App 400, 136 P3d 1186 (2006)

Determination regarding temporary visitation or contact rights does not have preclusive effect for purpose of final determination of custody, visitation or contact rights. Poet v. Thompson, 208 Or App 442, 144 P3d 1067 (2006)

Nonparent and child who reside in same abode for many, but not all, weekends do not reside in same household on “day-to-day basis.” Jensen v. Bevard, 215 Or App 215, 168 P3d 1209 (2007); Hanson-Parmer and Parmer, 233 Or App 187, 225 P3d 129 (2010)

“Child-parent relationship” on “day-to-day basis” does not require that person have physical custody of child every day and every night of week. Holt and Atterbury, 291 Or App 813, 420 P3d 676 (2018)

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 36 WLR 549 (2000); 82 OLR 1191 (2003); 44 WLR 297 (2007)

109.125 to 109.230

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Contract enforceable under ORS 109.230 provides additional grounds for enforcing support obligation, but cannot negate obligation of support. Fox v. Hohenshelt, 19 Or App 617, 528 P2d 1376 (1974)

Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act does not apply to paternity action because paternity action is not custody determination. State ex rel Baldwin v. Hale, 86 Or App 361, 738 P2d 1016 (1987)

109.125

NOTES OF DECISIONS

A mother who enters into a contract described in ORS 109.230 does so with respect only to damages that are personal to her and is not prevented from proceedings under this section for benefit of the child. Fox v. Hohenshelt, 19 Or App 617, 528 P2d 1376 (1974)

Mother who was married at time of child’s birth, but contending husband was not father, was not mother of “child born out of wedlock.” Fox v. Hohenshelt, 275 Or 91, 549 P2d 1117 (1976)

State, after having adequately alleged its standing to commence filiation proceeding, was required to prove at filiation trial that it was furnishing support to mother for benefit of child or assistance of any kind because of birth or impending birth of child. State ex rel AFSD v. Gilliland, 54 Or App 283, 634 P2d 820 (1981)

Due process does not require appointment of attorney for alleged father. State ex rel Adult & Fam. Serv. v. Stoutt, 57 Or App 303, 644 P2d 1132 (1982), Sup Ct review denied

Mother of child born out of wedlock may initiate filiation proceeding regardless of whether child is minor. Norton v. MacDonald, 194 Or App 174, 93 P3d 804 (2004)

109.135

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Appellate court standard of review for jury determination regarding paternity is for substantial evidence. State ex rel Jones v. Workman, 34 Or App 777, 579 P2d 1302 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Statute of limitations in filiation proceeding denies child equal protection. State ex rel Adult & Family Services Div. v. Bradley, 58 Or App 663, 650 P2d 91 (1982), aff’d 295 Or 216, 666 P2d 249 (1983); State ex rel AFSD v. Tuttle, 304 Or 270, 744 P2d 990 (1987)

109.155

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Corroborating evidence must be of some substantial fact or circumstance which, independent of the petitioner’s testimony, tends to connect the defendant with fatherhood of the child. State ex rel Farrer v. McGuire, 14 Or App 446, 513 P2d 816 (1973)

Oral admission of paternity in open court is not sufficient substitute for written and signed admission. State ex rel AFSD v. Buethe, 307 Or 89, 763 P2d 723 (1988)

Court’s ability to approve settlement agreement is limited to situations in which paternity has been verified through presentation of evidence or admitted in writing. State ex rel AFSD v. Buethe, 307 Or 89, 763 P2d 723 (1988)

Where putative father admitted paternity and agreed to entry of decree, judicial estoppel barred later assertion that admission was insufficient due to lack of oath. State ex rel AFSD v. Evans, 126 Or App 592, 869 P2d 891 (1994)

Award of expert witness fees to prevailing party is available only if expert witness was appointed by court or administrator as described under ORS 109.256. State ex rel Department of Human Resources v. Lewelling, 156 Or App 7, 964 P2d 1104 (1998)

109.165

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Authority of court to approve agreement between parties and incorporate it into its decree implies that without such approval agreement is not binding on court, and cannot prevent access to courts. Fox v. Hohenshelt, 19 Or App 617, 528 P2d 1376 (1974)

Invalidity of support order incorporating agreement must be based on grounds adequate to justify recision of contract. State ex rel Adult & Family Serv. Div. v. Hansen, 54 Or App 47, 634 P2d 256 (1981)

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 69 OLR 713 (1990)

109.175

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Entry of initial decree by default does not negate need to show change of circumstances in petition for modification. State ex rel Johnson v. Bail, 140 Or App 335, 915 P2d 439 (1996), aff’d325 Or 392, 938 P2d 209 (1997)

109.225

NOTES OF DECISIONS

109.230

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Contract enforceable under ORS 109.230 provides additional grounds for enforcing support obligation, but cannot negate obligation of support. Fox v. Hohenshelt, 19 Or App 617, 528 P2d 1376 (1974)

109.239

NOTES OF DECISIONS

If petitioner made agreement that he would have active, decision-making role in child’s life and have visitation rights and gave his semen for artificial insemination in reliance upon this agreement, then this section violates Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment by creating absolute bar to petitioner’s assertion of rights of fatherhood. McIntyre v. Crouch, 98 Or App 462, 780 P2d 239 (1989), Sup Ct review denied

“Donor” means any man who gives semen for purpose of artificial insemination, without regard to identities of parties or lack of physician involvement. McIntyre v. Crouch, 98 Or App 462, 780 P2d 239 (1989), Sup Ct review denied

As used in this section, “donor” encompasses both sperm donors and egg donors who are known to recipient, such as birthing parent’s spouse or known donor, and anonymous donors. In the Matter of the Parentage of S.D.S., 371 Or 573, 539 P3d 722 (2023)

Where both sperm donor and egg donor contributed gametes to assisted reproductive technology process, signed standard donation forms acknowledging relinquishment of any claim to or jurisdiction over future embryos and offspring, and neither donor gave birth to child or was spouse of birthing person, donors’ rights, obligations or interest with respect to child are foreclosed under this section. In the Matter of the Parentage of S.D.S., 371 Or 573, 539 P3d 722 (2023)

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Agreement in surrogacy contract to acknowledge paternity of or adopt yet-unconceived child not judicially enforceable, (1989) Vol 46, p 221

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 17 WLR 935 (1981)

109.243

NOTES OF DECISIONS

By function of Article I, section 20, of the Oregon constitution, privilege created by statute for husbands of women who give birth to children conceived by artificial insemination applies equally to same-sex domestic partners of women who give birth to children conceived by artificial insemination. Shineovich and Kemp, 229 Or App 670, 214 P3d 29 (2009), Sup Ct review denied

This section, to withstand constitutional challenge under Article I, section 20, Oregon Constitution, applies to same-sex couples that would have chosen to marry before birth of child had couple been permitted to marry. Madrone and Madrone, 271 Or App 116, 350 P3d 495 (2015)

Where same-sex couple that would have married had law permitted marriage conceives child through artificial insemination procedures, non-childbearing partner gives “consent,” as used in this section, to artificial insemination if that partner assents to or approves of procedure and assisting childbearing partner with procedure evidences that consent. Madrone and Madrone, 271 Or App 116, 350 P3d 495 (2015)

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Agreement in surrogacy contract to acknowledge paternity of or adopt yet-unconceived child not judicially enforceable, (1989) Vol 46, p 221

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 17 WLR 930 (1981)

109.252

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Refusal to take blood test requires both failure to take test and unwillingness to comply. State ex rel Fox v. Hicks, 69 Or App 348, 686 P2d 431 (1984)

Denial of blood grouping evidence to putative father on basis of indigency denies due process of law. State ex rel Fox v. Hicks, 69 Or App 348, 686 P2d 431 (1984)

109.256

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Appointment of expert witness by court or administrator is prerequisite to award of prevailing party expert witness fees under ORS 109.155. State ex rel Department of Human Resources v. Lewelling, 156 Or App 7, 964 P2d 1104 (1998)

109.258

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Although evidence of putative father’s paternity index and its equivalents is highly probative, it also presents substantial danger of misleading trier of fact. Plemel v. Walter, 303 Or 262, 735 P2d 1209 (1987)

Evidence of putative father’s paternity index should be admissible, but only subject to certain circumstances. Plemel v. Walter, 303 Or 262, 735 P2d 1209 (1987)

This section does not require presumption of legal parentage in cases involving assisted reproductive technology where genetic paternity or maternity is undisputed. In the Matter of the Parentage of S.D.S., 371 Or 573, 539 P3d 722 (2023)

109.268

(formerly 109.305)

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Post Adoption Communication Agreement is unenforceable unless in writing and approved by adoption court at time of adoption proceeding. Fast v. Moore, 205 Or App 630, 135 P3d 387 (2006)

109.272

(formerly 109.307)

NOTES OF DECISIONS

This section requires trial court to hold hearing and take appropriate action within six months of the filing of petition for adoption, although proceedings may extend beyond six months. Thies v. Barnes, 11 Or App 158, 501 P2d 1305 (1972)

109.276

(formerly 109.309)

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Under former similar statute (ORS 109.310)

A police investigation report of child abuse by adoption petitioners attached to an adoption report submitted pursuant to this section was not inadmissible hearsay. H. v. Children’s Serv. Div., 17 Or App 395, 522 P2d 225 (1974)

109.281

(formerly 109.311)

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Payment of money to birth mother does not automatically make consent to adoption invalid. In re Adoption of Baby A and Baby B, 128 Or App 450, 877 P2d 107 (1994)

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: State will not enforce any agreement for exchange of money for right to adopt or have custody of child, (1989) Vol 46, p 221; Organizations that promote and arrange surrogacy contracts must comply with laws governing private child-caring agencies, (1989) Vol 46, p 221

109.301

(formerly 109.312, then 109.321)

NOTES OF DECISIONS

The payment of money by adoptive parents to the natural parent vitiates any consent which might have been given. Franklin v. Biggs, 14 Or App 450, 513 P2d 1216 (1973), Sup Ct review denied

The natural mother’s withdrawal of her consent before entry of the adoption decree requires disallowance of a petition for adoption. Small v. Andrews, 20 Or App 6, 530 P2d 540 (1975)

Neither language of this section nor legislative history indicate this section is exclusive way to create irrevocable consent and mother could be estopped from revoking consent. Aultman v. McCracken, 104 Or App 266, 799 P2d 1148 (1990)

Once adoption proceeding has been instituted, parent can withdraw consent only by providing notice to court. Stubbs v. Weathersby, 320 Or 620, 892 P2d 991 (1995)

Court may not obviate consent requirement by finding that parent engaged in conduct that would permit termination of parental rights. Michels v. Hodges, 146 Or App 128, 931 P2d 827 (1997), aff’d 326 Or 538, 956 P2d 184 (1998)

Whether natural parent is party to adoption depends on whether parent either had opportunity to appear in adoption proceeding or waived appearance by properly finalized certificate of waiver. McCulley v. Bone, 160 Or App 24, 979 P2d 779 (1999)

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Surrogate mother’s promise in surrogacy contract to consent to adoption of yet-unconceived child by biological father and his wife not judicially enforceable, (1989) Vol 46, p 221

109.305

See annotations under ORS 109.268.

109.307

See annotations under ORS 109.272.

109.309

See annotations under ORS 109.276.

109.310 to 109.360

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Change of name in public records, (1977) Vol 38, p 945

109.310

NOTE: Repealed November 4, 1993; ORS 109.309 enacted in lieu

See annotations under ORS 109.276.

109.311

See annotations under ORS 109.281.

109.312

See annotations under ORS 109.301.

109.314

See annotations under ORS 109.323.

109.316

See annotations under ORS 109.325.

109.321

(formerly 109.312)

See annotations under ORS 109.301.

109.322

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Authority of court to conduct show cause hearing does not deny due process or equal protection rights of imprisoned parent who refuses to consent to adoption. F. v. C., 24 Or App 601, 547 P2d 175 (1976)

Where trial court ordered father’s waiver of consent to adoption without first allowing him to present his defense in opposition to adoption, father was denied his right, under this section, to be heard. Anderson v. Crouse, 83 Or App 216, 730 P2d 1275 (1986)

This section was not impliedly repealed by enactment of ORS 137.275 which abolishes “civil death.” Stursa v. Kyle, 99 Or App 236, 782 P2d 158 (1989)

This section is not penal and does not violate Article I, section 15 of Oregon Constitution. Stursa v. Kyle, 99 Or App 236, 782 P2d 158 (1989)

Privileges and immunities provision of Oregon Constitution requires that indigent parent whose rights are being terminated be afforded assistance of counsel in contested adoption proceeding. Hunt v. Weiss, 169 Or App 317, 8 P3d 990 (2000)

Where parent incarcerated for more than three years refuses to consent to adoption, court must find proof of additional statutory ground for termination of parent’s rights before court may proceed to consideration of best interest of child. Moran v. Weldon, 184 Or App 269, 57 P3d 898 (2002), Sup Ct review denied

Three-year incarceration period served prior to filing of adoption petition may include time prior to birth of child. Daniel v. Naylor, 192 Or App 1, 84 P3d 819 (2004)

109.323

(formerly 109.314)

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 53 OLR 543 (1974)

109.324

NOTES OF DECISIONS

“Neglected without just and sufficient cause” requires proof that parent failed to perform parental duties for required statutory period and that neglect was voluntary. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Draper, 7 Or App 497, 491 P2d 215 (1971), Sup Ct review denied

Proof of father’s nonsupport and failure to visit was insufficient to allow adoption of child without father’s consent under this section when nonsupport was based on agreement with mother. Mahoney v. Linder, 14 Or App 656, 514 P2d 901 (1973); Sayre v. Whitehead, 25 Or App 205, 548 P2d 521 (1976)

Where a parent is not ordered to pay child support and is denied visitation under a dissolution decree it is necessary to consider predissolution conduct to determine whether the decree caused the neglect. Swarthout v. Reeves, 26 Or App 763, 554 P2d 617 (1976)

Willful neglect does not require proof that parent intended to abandon all parental rights, but is evaluated by presence or absence of minimal expressions of concern, ordinarily measured in terms of money payments and personal contacts. Chaffin v. Palumbo, 99 Or App 312, 781 P2d 1247 (1989); Pizano-Varela v. Gomez, 103 Or App 629, 798 P2d 724 (1990)

Contested adoption proceeding requires clear and convincing standard of proof or persuasion. Chaffin v. Palumbo, 99 Or App 312, 781 P2d 1247 (1989); Zockert v. Fanning, 310 Or 514, 800 P2d 773 (1990)

Relevant time period for determining willful neglect is one-year period immediately preceding filing of petition for adoption. Pizano-Varela v. Gomez, 103 Or App 629, 798 P2d 724 (1990)

Privileges and immunities provision of Oregon Constitution requires that indigent parents be afforded assistance of counsel in contested adoption proceedings as is required in proceedings to terminate parental rights. Zockert v. Fanning, 310 Or 514, 800 P2d 773 (1990)

Standard to determine if parent has wilfully neglected child is whether parent wilfully failed to manifest substantial expressions of concern which show parent has deliberate, intentional and good faith interest in maintaining parent-child relationship. Eder v. West, 312 Or 244, 821 P2d 400 (1991)

First stage in adoption proceeding determines whether to terminate natural parent’s rights and interest in child based on parental conduct, while second stage involves independent determination applying best interest of child standard to issue of adoption. Eder v. West, 312 Or 244, 821 P2d 400 (1991)

Assertion that custodial parent has made or would make visitation difficult does not provide “just and sufficient cause” for neglect. Panter v. Ash, 177 Or App 589, 33 P3d 1028 (2001)

Willful desertion of child requires parent action or inaction that demonstrates intentional choice directed toward specific result of deserting child. C.R.H. v. B.F., 215 Or App 479, 169 P3d 1286 (2007), Sup Ct review denied

Finding of neglect requires evidence of deliberate decision by parent not to maintain parent-child relationship. C.R.H. v. B.F., 215 Or App 479, 169 P3d 1286 (2007), Sup Ct review denied

Because order under this section, that mother’s consent was not required for adoption of mother’s child by parents of child’s father, was interlocutory and did not itself effectuate termination of mother’s parental rights, court lacked jurisdiction under ORS 19.205 to hear mother’s appeal of order. A.M. v. N.E.D., 287 Or App 36, 400 P3d 1036 (2017)

Incarceration of parent, by itself, is not just and sufficient cause that excuses willful neglect of child by parent. T.G. W. v. B.J.V., 295 Or App 717, 436 P3d 85 (2019)

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 71 OLR 507 (1992)

109.325

(formerly 109.316)

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Where child is permanently committed to CSD due to termination of rights of only one parent, CSD consent is effective as to rights of terminated parent regardless of independent grant or denial of consent by other parent. Grove v. Baker, 73 Or App 452, 698 P2d 1017 (1985)

109.326

NOTES OF DECISIONS

The payment of money by adoptive parents to the natural parent vitiates any consent which might have been given. Franklin v. Biggs, 14 Or App 450, 513 P2d 1216 (1973), Sup Ct review denied

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 53 OLR 532-540 (1974)

109.328

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 51 OLR 521 (1972)

109.350

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Natural parent adoption of own child is nullity. Campbell v. Kindred, 26 Or App 771, 554 P2d 599 (1976), Sup Ct review denied

109.381

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Provision for validation of adoption after one year cannot be used to validate otherwise void decree of adoption by natural parent. Campbell v. Kindred, 26 Or App 771, 554 P2d 599 (1976), Sup Ct review denied

An adoption decree is subject to being set aside within one year from date of entry. In re Walker/Pitman/Parris, 59 Or App 641, 652 P2d 362 (1982)

Provision for validation of decree after one year applies notwithstanding that decree is otherwise void. Hogue v. Olympic Bank, 76 Or App 17, 708 P2d 605 (1985), Sup Ct review denied

Limitation of this section, on commencement of proceeding to set aside decree of adoption is not tolled by child’s minority under ORS 12.160 (1). Wimber v. Timpe, 109 Or App 139, 818 P2d 954 (1991)

Filiation proceeding constitutes collateral attack on adoption. Chamberlain v. Williams, 134 Or App 506, 895 P2d 805 (1995)

Application of time limit to prevent challenge by parent who never received notice of adoption proceeding denied parent due process. Phariss v. Welshans, 150 Or App 498, 946 P2d 1160 (1997)

Where Oregon licensed adoption agency consents to adoption of child that was surrendered to agency for adoption, natural parent of child is not party to adoption proceeding. Sant v. Open Adoption and Family Services, Inc., 153 Or App 114, 956 P2d 226 (1998)

109.510

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Age of majority for applicants for motor carrier operating authority, (1974) Vol 37, p 78

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 11 WLJ 70-86 (1974)

109.520

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Age of majority for applicants for motor carrier operating authority, (1974) Vol 37, p 78

109.560

See annotations under ORS 419B.555.

109.610

(formerly 109.105)

NOTE: Repealed as of July 13, 2023

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Need for parental consent for commitment, (1972) Vol 35, p 1095

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 51 OLR 521 (1972); 70 OLR 651 (1991)

109.640

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Need for parental consent for commitment, (1972) Vol 35, p 1095

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 51 OLR 521 (1972); 70 OLR 651 (1991)

109.650

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Need for parental consent for commitment, (1972) Vol 35, p 1095

109.660

NOTE: Repealed as of July 13, 2023

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Need for parental consent for commitment, (1972) Vol 35, p 1095

109.670

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 70 OLR 651 (1991)

109.675

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 70 OLR 651 (1991)

109.704

NOTES OF DECISIONS

In determining whether absence is “temporary absence,” Oregon adopts totality of circumstances test, which looks at all surrounding circumstances of purported temporary absence, including intent of parties and duration of absence, to assess whether absence should be treated as temporary departure from putative home state. Schwartz and Battini, 289 Or App 332, 410 P3d 319 (2017)

“Commencement” of proceedings does not include filing of ex parte declaration in support of protective custody order under ORS 419B.150 but would include removal of child pursuant to that order. Dept. of Human Services v. M.P., 328 Or App 502, 537 P3d 593 (2023)

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 80 OLR 301 (2001)

109.741

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Minimum contacts and service within Oregon are not required for court to have jurisdiction to make custody determination. Department of Human Services v. M.H., 256 Or App 306, 300 P3d 1262 (2013), Sup Ct review denied

Under Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, juvenile court fails to establish home-state jurisdiction over child by issuing protective custody order under ORS 419B.150 if child was never removed pursuant to that order. Dept. of Human Services v. M.P., 328 Or App 502, 537 P3d 593 (2023)

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 80 OLR 301 (2001)

109.744

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Court that no longer has jurisdiction to modify custody determination retains authority to enforce determination through contempt proceedings until determination has been superseded. Medill and Medill, 179 Or App 630, 40 P3d 1087 (2002)

109.747

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Jurisdictional requirements are applicable to any petition seeking to change, replace or supersede prior award of custody, regardless of whether petition involves same proceeding or parties. Snow v. Snow, 189 Or App 189, 74 P3d 1137 (2003)

109.751

NOTES OF DECISIONS

For purposes of court having temporary emergency jurisdiction under Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, proper focus is whether child will be at immediate risk of harm upon return to parent; thus, juvenile court properly exercised temporary emergency jurisdiction to protect petitioner where petitioner would be at risk of abuse if returned to father in El Salvador when return was unknown but could occur at any time. State v. L.P.L.O., 280 Or App 292, 381 P3d 846 (2016)

Court with temporary emergency jurisdiction under Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act over child who is temporarily in this state, but whose parents are residents of another state, has authority to issue dependency judgment as necessary to maintain child’s safety but may not issue permanent orders, including terminating parental rights or imposing requirements on parents necessary for parents to regain custody, and court maintains jurisdiction over child while emergency is ongoing. Dept. of Human Services v. J.S., 368 Or 516, 495 P3d 1245 (2021)

109.761

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 80 OLR 301 (2001)