Mayfield and Mayfield

Under ORS 109.744(1)(a), to conclude that it does not have continuing jurisdiction in a child-custody case, a trial court must determine: (1) the children do not have “a significant connection with Oregon” and (2) substantial evidence concerning the “care, protection, training and personal relationships” of the children are “no longer available in Oregon.” Under ORS 109.761, an Oregon court may consider “all relevant factors” to determine that “it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances” and another court “is a more appropriate forum.”

In this child-custody case, Father appealed the trial court’s conclusion that it no longer had jurisdiction over custody decisions and that a Washington state court was a more convenient forum.  On appeal, Father argued that the trial court’s factual findings were inaccurate.  Father also asserted that he was not given sufficient “notice of the inconvenient-forum issue.”  In response, Mother defended the trial court’s findings.  Under ORS 109.744(1)(a), to conclude that it does not have continuing jurisdiction in a child-custody case, a trial court must determine: (1) the children do not have “a significant connection with Oregon” and (2) substantial evidence concerning the “care, protection, training and personal relationships” of the children are “no longer available in Oregon.”  Under ORS 109.761, an Oregon court may consider “all relevant factors” to determine that “it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances” and another court “is a more appropriate forum.”  Although the Court considered overruling its interpretation of “significant connection” under ORS 109.744(1)(a) requiring “maximum contacts,” it ultimately declined to resolve that issue because the parties did not brief on the subject.   Instead, the Court ruled that Father had sufficient notice of the inconvenient-forum issue in Mother’s written motion, and that the trial court’s findings related to that issue were supported by the evidence.  Thus, the Court held that the trial court did not err when it declined further jurisdiction on inconvenient-forum grounds.  Affirmed.