Campbell v. Tardio, 323 P.3d 317

Child born in Oregon on July 19, 2005; parents never married and had an intermittent relationship.
In Feb. 2006 parties stipulated to an Oregon custody judgment awarding father sole custody and mother visitation; the judgment recited Oregon as the child’s home state.
In Nov. 2009 the parties signed a stipulated motion that "dismissed" the 2006 custody judgment after mother took the child and moved out of state (to CA, then ND).
Father filed a custody petition in Jefferson County, Oregon on March 9, 2011; mother moved to change venue to North Dakota under ORS 14.110 and argued Oregon lacked UCCJEA jurisdiction.
Trial court denied the venue motion, found continuing Oregon jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, awarded custody to father after applying ORS 107.137 best‑interest factors; mother appealed.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Father’s Argument	Held
Whether Oregon had subject‑matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA to make the custody determination	Oregon lost home‑state/continuing jurisdiction because the 2006 custody order was "dismissed" and child later lived out of state	The 2006 judgment established Oregon as home state and conferred continuing jurisdiction; no adverse findings ended it	Oregon retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under ORS 109.744; trial court properly exercised jurisdiction
Whether mother’s venue motion should be treated as a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction	Venue change should be construed as motion to dismiss because of lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction under UCCJEA	Subject‑matter jurisdiction cannot be waived; the proper challenge was addressed and fails on the merits	Motion denied; subject‑matter jurisdiction existed and need not be waived to be considered
Whether trial court abused discretion in awarding custody to father	Mother claimed primary caregiver status and sought de novo review	Father emphasized mother’s unilateral removal of the child and trial court’s credibility findings favoring father/grandmother	Court declined de novo review (no exceptional case), deferred to trial court credibility findings, and affirmed custody award as within discretion

Daly and Daly, 228 Or App 134 (2009) (UCCJEA subject‑matter jurisdiction may be raised at any stage)
Killam and Heald, 109 Or App 1 (1991) (continuing jurisdiction under prior custody statute supports retaining jurisdiction)
Medill and Medill, 179 Or App 630 (2002) (Oregon court may determine it lacks continuing jurisdiction)
Snow v. Snow, 189 Or App 189 (2003) (North Dakota initial custody award without finding loss of continuing jurisdiction)
Sjomeling v. Lasser, 251 Or App 172 (2012) (review of child custody for abuse of discretion)
Underwood and Mallory, 255 Or App 183 (2013) (restraints on de novo appellate review; exceptional‑case standard)
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 248 Or App 539 (2012) (weighting of best‑interest factors and fostering parent–child relationships)
O’Donnell‑Lamont and Lamont, 337 Or 86 (2004) (deference to trial court credibility findings even on de novo review)