Aguilar v. Badger

“[T]he rationale for the change-in-circumstances rule is that, unless the parent who seeks a change in custody establishes that the facts that formed the basis for the prior custody determination have changed materially by the time of the modification hearing, the prior adjudication is preclusive with respect to the issue of the best interests of the child under the extant facts.” State ex rel Johnson v. Bail, 325 Or 392, 397, 938 P2d 209 (1997)

Father appealed the trial court’s judgment that granted sole custody to Mother. On appeal, Father argued that the trial court incorrectly relied on his arrest and pending charges to determine that there was a change in circumstances. The Supreme Court has stated that, “[t]he rationale for the change-in-circumstances rule is that, unless the parent who seeks a change in custody establishes that the facts that formed the basis for the prior custody determination have changed materially by the time of the modification hearing, the prior adjudication is preclusive with respect to the issue of the best interests of the child under the extant facts.” State ex rel Johnson v. Bail, 325 Or 392, 397, 938 P2d 209 (1997).The Court found that the trial court’s reliance on the pending criminal charges against father were not supported by evidence that they affected the child’s circumstances or the Father’s ability to care for the child or that would allow an inference that the circumstances had materially changed. Thus, the Court held that the trial court erred in its change-in-circumstances determination. Reversed.