In Re the Marriage of Porter, 262 P.3d 1169

After a nine-year marriage, the parties were divorced in March 2009 by a stipulated general judgment; Tyler, the father's nephew, is a co-guardian but not formally adopted and was listed as a child of the marriage for custody and support purposes.
The stipulated judgment awarded custody to mother and ordered child support for three children based on three-child guidelines, with father providing health/dental insurance and spousal support to mother.
In July 2009, father moved for modification to increase parenting time and decrease support, arguing reduced income and a new child from a different relationship.
The court treated Tyler as a child of the marriage and used a three-child calculation with a rebuttal amount for Tyler, and found father in contempt for failing to pay support and for claiming the children on his 2008 tax return.
Mother sought contempt sanctions; the court imposed a $3,000 fine payable to mother, noting it approximated half of the tax refund.
On appeal, the court held the stipulated judgment to treat Tyler as a child of the marriage is enforceable and that Tyler must be included in support calculations as a third child; remanded for recalculation of support for three children; affirmed contempt finding but rejected punitive characterization of the fine.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tyler is a child of the marriage and the stipulated judgment is enforceable	Porter contends Tyler is not a child of the marriage and the stipulation is void.	Griffin argues the stipulation is enforceable to provide for Tyler under ORS 107.104.	Stipulation enforceable; Tyler treated as child; remand for three-child support.
How to calculate child support for three children including Tyler	Porter argues Tyler’s support should not be included as a joint child.	Griffin argues for three-child calculation; Tyler included in support.	Support must be calculated for three children on remand.
Whether father's contempt finding and $3,000 fine were proper	Porter challenged the contempt finding and argued sanction was punitive.	Griffin supported contempt; argued sanction appropriately remedial/punitive as law allows.	Contempt upheld; fine not characterized as punitive.

Reeves and Elliott, 237 Or.App. 126 (2010) (enforceability of marital dissolution agreements; presumption in favor)
Porter and Porter, 100 Or.App. 401 (1990) (enforceability of negotiated settlements in dissolution actions)
Compton v. Compton, 187 Or.App. 142 (2003) (public policy considerations in contempt and support orders)
Turner and Muller, 237 Or.App. 192 (2010) (standards for de novo review in dissolution appeals)