Nice v. Townley, 248 Or. App. 616

The unmarried mother and father had a child, M., born in September 2007; they were never married.
M. has lived primarily with mother; mother coordinated most healthcare and daily care for M.
Father had intermittent contact; his visitation increased temporarily through court-ordered temporary parenting time.
A custody petition was filed by father in January 2009; mother and maternal grandfather sought to limit contact pending resolution.
The court granted temporary parenting time to father; later hearings increased father’s time but also emphasized getting more information before a final ruling.
Final custody award granted custody to father; trial court found equal weighting of most factors except factor (f) about encouraging relationship; mother appealed arguing mother was M.'s primary caregiver and should be favored under factor (e).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the court improperly ignore the primary caregiver factor (ORS 107.137(1)(e))?	Townley was M.'s primary caregiver.	The court implicitly found no primary caregiver and weighed factors evenly.	Yes; court erred by not addressing the primary caregiver preference and vacated/remanded.

Boldt v. Boldt, 104 Or.App. 379 (1990) (primary caregiver consideration in custody)
McBrayer v. Randolph, 191 Or.App. 553 (2004) (evaluation of primary caregiver factors)
Holcomb v. Holcomb, 132 Or.App. 498 (1995) (caregiving duties as a primary caregiver indicator)
Tuttle v. Tuttle, 62 Or.App. 281 (1983) (caregiving and custody analysis)
Derby v. Derby, 31 Or.App. 803 (1977) (consideration of primary caregiver in custody)
Olson v. Olson, 218 Or.App. 1 (2008) (exercise of discretion under correct methodology)
Turner v. Muller, 237 Or.App. 192 (2010) (de novo review exceptions and custody framework)
Meier v. Meier, 286 Or. 437 (1979) (framework for best interests in custody)
Cooksey v. Cooksey, 203 Or.App. 157 (2005) (trial court discretion in custody determinations)