Dep’t of Hum. Servs. v. J. H.

“[W]here one is holding over after expiration of his term under claim or color of right, his official acts are those of a de facto officer, and are valid as to the public and third persons,and cannot be collaterally assailed.” Hamlin v. Kassafer, 15 Or. 456 (1887).

Father appealed assignment of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction over his daughter, E. Father assigned error to the court’s denial of his motion to set aside judgment. Father argued the presiding judge’s “pro tempore” status had expired, so the judge lacked authority to render judgment. In response, the State argued the judgment should stand based on the “de facto judge” doctrine. “[W]here one is holding over after expiration of his term under claim or color of right, his official acts are those of a de facto officer, and are valid as to the public and third persons, and cannot be collaterally assailed.” Hamlin v. Kassafer, 15 Or. 456 (1887). Relying on precedent, the Court found the judge was “holding over,” and he continued to perform all the functions of a pro tempore judge. Further, the Court found that a de facto judgment cannot be challenged collaterally. The Court held that during the time the judge presided over Father’s case, he had “color of right,” and therefore the challenged judgment was valid. Affirmed.