- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Family Law
- Date Filed: 07-05-2018
- Case #: A162109
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Shorr, J. for the Court; Armstrong, P.J.; & Tookey, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Father appealed the trial court’s judgment awarding sole custody of their minor child to mother and modifying their 2006 stipulated parenting time. Father assigned error to the trial court’s determination and finding of a substantial chance in circumstance because the Father was moving. In response, the Mother argued that she had a right to know about the Father's plans to move and therefore was a substantial change in custody circumstance and also the Father was causing the Mother and the child to have an unstable relationship. The Supreme court has a two-step determination for a chance of custody. Since the original judgment or custody/parenting time order, capacity of the moving party or legal custodian’s ability to take care of the child has changed and it would be in the child’s best interest, upon review of the relevant evidence, that custody be changed. The moving party has the burden of proving the change of circumstance. Boldt and Boldt, 344 Or 1, 9, 176 P3d 388 (2008). The Court held the trial court’s finding did not support that the move of the Father to another city would have an adverse effect on the capacity of Father or Mother to care for their minor child. The Court also held that there is no evidence that Father tried to aggressively undermined child’s healthy relationship with mother; Father’s move from Hillsboro to Gaston, Oregon does not constitute a chance of circumstance, therefore, reversed and remanded.