Finney-Chokey v. Chokey

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Civil Procedure
  • Date Filed: 08-24-2016
  • Case #: A157466
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Lagesen, P.J. for the Court; Schuman, S.J.; & Garrett, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

If a particular factual finding was not necessary to the trial court’s determination, and the trial court did not expressly make the finding on the record, an appellate court will not presume that the finding was made.

The trial court entered a judgment of dissolution of marriage that approved mother’s request move with child, E, to the United Kingdom over father’s opposition. The judgment also provided that all of father’s parenting time would be in the United Kingdom until E turn eight, at which point he would be entitled to have half his parenting time in the United States. On appeal, father argued that the trial court erred in its application of the “best interests of the child” standard under ORS 107.137(1) by not taking into account required factors in approving the move, and alternatively it abused its discretion in determining that the move and the geographic restriction on father’s parenting time were in E’s best interest. The Court of Appeals held the duration of the geographic restriction on father's parenting time was “clearly against” the evidence on the record because there was no testimony or other evidence in the record to support the trial court ruling. Therefore, the Court of Appeals held the trial court abused its discretion in determining the geographic restriction on father’s parenting time. Reversed and remanded for reconsideration of the extent to which a geographic restriction on father’s parenting time was in E’s best interest; otherwise affirmed.

Advanced Search