In the Matter of Shayne SLAUGHTER, Petitioner-Appellant, and Grace HARRIS, nka Grace M. Wright, Respondent-Respondent.
and submitted January 31, 2018
Washington County Circuit Court C054071DRA Beth L. Roberts,
Michael J. Fearl argued the cause for appellant. Also on the
briefs was Schulte, Anderson, Downes, Aronson & Bittner,
M. Rogers argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief
were Tammy M. Dentinger and Garrett Hemann Robertson PC.
Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Shorr,
appeals from a supplemental judgment changing custody of
child, T, from father to mother and modifying the parenting
time provisions of a 2006 stipulated judgment. Father moved
with T approximately 15 miles further away from mother than
his previous residence. Father did not inform mother of his
plans to move until those plans had been fnalized. Following
the move, it became more diffcult for mother to make full use
of her allowed parenting time and father became less
cooperative with mother regarding her parenting time. The
trial court concluded that the move, along with the
subsequent decline in father's cooperation with mother,
constituted a substantial change in circumstances suffcient
to change custody from father to mother. Father assigns error
to that determination.
trial court erred when it changed custody from father to
mother. The record, even when viewed in the light most
favorable to the trial court's determination, does not
support a determination that a substantial change of
circumstances suffcient to justify a change of custody had
Or.App. 688] SHORR, J.
appeals from the trial court's supplemental judgment
awarding sole custody of their minor child, T, to mother and
modifying parenting time provisions of a 2006 stipulated
judgment. Prior to the supplemental judgment, father was
T's legal custodian, and a general parenting-time plan
provided for equal parenting time. Father first assigns error
to the trial court's determination that there had been a
substantial change in circumstances justifying a change of
custody We conclude that the record is not legally
sufficient to prove a substantial change in circumstances
justifying a change of custody.
party has sought de novo review. See ORS
19.415(3)(b); ORAP 5.40(8). Accordingly, on review of a
change of custody, we are bound by the trial court's
findings of fact provided that they are supported by any
evidence in the record, and we review legal conclusions for
errors of law. Botofan-Miller and Miller, 288
Or.App. 674, 675, 406 P.3d 175 (2017), rev allowed,
362 Or.App. 860 (2018). Under that standard, we review the
evidence, as supplemented and buttressed by permissible
derivative inferences, in the light most favorable to the
trial court's determination, and assess whether the
record contains legally sufficient evidence to support the
determination that a change in circumstances has occurred.
Id. at 675-76.
state the facts consistently with the trial court's
express and implied findings supported by the record. Between
2006 and 2015, father lived in Hillsboro, Oregon. Father was
T's sole legal custodian. Mother and father shared equal
parenting time pursuant to parenting-time provisions in the
2006 stipulated judgment. In 2015, mother learned from T that
father planned to move to Gaston, Oregon, approximately 15
miles further away from mother.Father did not consult mother
about the move and did not [292 Or.App. 689] notify mother
prior to deciding to move. The move required changing T's
school in Hillsboro to a local elementary school in Gaston.
Mother expressed concern that the ...