Sjomeling v. Lasser
251 Or. App. 172
| Or. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Mother seeks to relocate with two children from Oregon to Utah, prompting a supplemental judgment modifying the parenting plan.
- Father challenges the relocation, arguing it is not in the children’s best interests and would reduce his parenting time.
- Historically, custody and parenting time were governed by a 2007 formal plan; the parties are in high conflict with limited cooperation.
- Mother is the custodial parent with limited income, relying on extended family support in Oregon; moving to Utah would place her near her parents who can assist with work and child care.
- Mother has a bona fide job offer in Utah as a print broker with a starting salary, plus future growth, which the trial court found would improve the family’s financial stability.
- The trial court found the move would provide emotional and logistical support from mother’s extended family in Utah and thereby benefit the children, despite anticipated loss of an alternating schedule with father.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is relocation in the children’s best interests? | Father argues relocation benefits mother only, not children. | Mother contends relocation serves children via improved stability, employment, and extended family support. | Yes; relocation to Utah is in the children’s best interests. |
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion weighing benefits of relocation against reduced parenting time? | Father claims the move diminishes his contact with children and should be disfavored. | Mother asserts overall benefits justify reduced schedule; the schedule can preserve contact via planned visits and calls. | No; the benefits outweighed the costs, not an abuse of discretion. |
| What standard of appellate review applies to the best-interests determination in this equitable case? | Father urges de novo review on best interests under pre-2013 standards. | Court should apply abuse-of-discretion review, given ORS 19.415(3) amendments and Meier/Nice framework. | Abuse-of-discretion review is applied; underlying decision is within legally permissible discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maurer v. Maurer, 245 Or App 615 (2011) (move supported when custodial parent has employment and near family; benefits to child)
- Nice v. Townley, 248 Or App 616 (2012) (custody award review under ORS 107.137; abuse of discretion if misweighing statutory factors)
- Meier v. Meier, 286 Or 437 (1979) (best-interests determination addressed to the trial court’s discretion)
- Cooksey v. Cooksey, 203 Or App 157 (2005) (relocation decisions reviewed for de novo or abuse of discretion with statutory framework)
- Herinckx v. Herinckx, 231 Or App 50 (2009) (relocation not in child’s best interests where move primarily serves parent)
- Fedorov v. Fedorov, 228 Or App 50 (2009) (relocation not in child’s best interests where benefits to parent not to child)
- McCollum v. Kmart Corp., 228 Or App 101 (2009) (abuse of discretion standard in equitable action)
- Maurer and Maurer, 245 Or App 615 (2011) (emphasizes balancing employment, family proximity in relocation analyses)