Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State ex rel Department of Justice v. Akins

Court of Appeals of Oregon

May 3, 2017

STATE OF OREGON ex rel DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and Jennifer D. Buck, Petitioners-Respondents,
v.
Robert W. AKINS, Jr., Respondent-Appellant.

          Argued and Submitted November 5, 2015

         Lane County Circuit Court 170 22 32 91; Clara L Rigmaiden, Judge.

          Rogelio Cassol argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Arnold Law.

          Denise G. Fjordbeck, Assistant Attorney General, waived appearance for respondent State of Oregon ex rel Department of Justice.

          No appearance for respondent Jennifer D. Buck.

          Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Hadlock, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.

         Case Summary:

         Father appeals a judgment establishing a child support arrearage against him. He asserts that the trial court should have given him a credit against the arrearage based on mother's acknowledgment that father had 50 percent parenting time with the child for the entire period that the arrearage covered. Held: Under ORS 107.135(7)(a), a trial court cannot give a credit against a child support arrearage for reasonable parenting time. Because father sought a credit only for his reasonable parenting time with the child, the trial court did not err.

         Affirmed.

          ARMSTRONG, P.J.

         Father appeals a judgment establishing a child support arrearage under ORS 25.167. He contends that the trial court erred by failing to give him a credit under ORS lO7.l35(7)(a)[1] against the arrearage, based on mother's acknowledgement that, for the entire period that the arrearage covered, father had 50 percent parenting time with the child on whose behalf father had been ordered to pay support. Because we conclude that the trial court could not give a credit to father for his parenting time under the terms of that statute, we affirm the judgment.

         As an initial matter, we decline father's request to take de novo review, because this is not an exceptional case that merits that treatment. See ORAP 5.40(8). Accordingly, we state the pertinent facts that are undisputed, and, to the extent there are disputed pertinent facts, "we state them in accordance with the trial court's express and implied findings that are supported by evidence in the record." Hunt and Hunt. 238 Or.App. 195, 197, 242 P.3d 682 (2010) (citing ORS 19.415(3)).

         Father and mother, who never married, have one son together who was 16 years old at the time of the hearing in this matter. Mother obtained a judgment in November 2002 approving an administrative order of financial responsibility that required father to pay $317 per month as child support for the child "who is in the custody of [mother]." Although father was served with the filings, father did not respond or appear in the matter. In 2006, the state filed an enforcement action on mother's behalf for father's failure to pay child support between December 2005 and May 2006. The state dismissed that action at mother's request. Father claims that he and mother made an oral agreement that mother would claim the child as a dependent on her tax returns and, in return, father would not have to pay child support. Mother claimed that she made the agreement because she did not want father to go to jail, but that father was also supposed to pay for 50 percent of the child's expenses, which he did not do. Father claimed the child as a dependent on his 2013 tax return in violation of his oral agreement with mother.

         In May 2014, the state filed the instant child support enforcement action on mother's behalf. Father had missed several child support payments between 2002 and 2006 and stopped making payments in October 2006, resulting ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.