On a legal note, this site is for after the divorce! Do NOT do this during your divorce without agreement or  because of the statutory restraining order on assets.

*** UPDATE TO POST ****

The site Never Liked It Anyway appears to be down. They had a brilliant idea and I hope they are back up soon!

This case deals with a parent’s ability to modify child support through the Support Enforcement Division while the divorce judgment is being appealed.  Mother had appealed the trial court’s decision in the divorce case and, while her appeal was pending, Father requested a modification of child support.  There followed a number of different administrative and Circuit Court hearings related to Father’s request to modify child support, and Mother eventually appealed the final decision.  The Court of Appeals stated that the Support Enforcement Division did not have the authority to modify child support while the appeal was pending.

It is important to note that, under ORS 19.275, the trial court can modify child support while an appeal is pending based on a substantial change of circumstances.  This decision only limits administrative changes to child support.

The entire opinion can be found here.

In this case, the victim was granted a restraining order against her ex-boyfriend due to his threatening behavior and stalking, including sending threatening text messages, lurking near the victim’s home and trespassing on her property, and vandalizing her property.  In order for the court to issue a FAPA restraining order, the victim had to show that she had been the victim of abuse by her ex-boyfriend in the past 180 days, that there was imminent danger of further abuse, and that her ex-boyfriend represented a credible threat to her physical safety.  The definition of abuse includes conduct which places the victim in fear of imminent bodily injury.  In this case, the trial court continued the restraining order and the Court of Appeals upheld it.  The Court of Appeals found that victim’s proof of the ex-boyfriend’s repeated threatening behavior and stalking was sufficient to establish that she was in fear of imminent bodily injury.  The Court further found that his persistence in threatening the victim and her friend, in trespassing on the victim’s property, and in harassing her by chasing her in his car were sufficient to show that the victim was in imminent danger of further abuse and that the ex-boyfriend represented a credible threat to her safety.

Many people believe that an individual must physically harm the victim in order for the court to grant the victim a restraining order.  However, many different actions which cause an individual to fear imminent harm may be the basis for a restraining order.

The entire opinion can be found here.

In this case, the parties signed a stipulated general judgment which awarded child support to Mother.  The judgment included a provision preventing either party from modifying child support in the future based on changes in income or any other change of circumstances, such as a change in parenting time.  Four years later, Father attempted to modify his child support obligation based on a decrease in his income, and the trial court upheld the agreement not to modify.  Father argued that the provision violated public policy because it deprived the state of the right to set child support according to the support guidelines and deprived the court of its authority to modify child support.  The Court of Appeals found the agreement did not take away the court’s authority to modify child support, but rather was an agreement between the parties waiving their right to seek modification.  The Court found that such waiver provisions are enforceable, unless the circumstances of a particular case make enforcement of the agreement contrary to public policy.  The Court left the open the possibility that it would not enforce such an agreement if doing so would negatively impact the children in a particular case.

Parties to a divorce should generally avoid provisions which limit their ability to seek future modifications which would be allowed under Oregon law.

The entire opinion can be found here.

In this case, the Court of Appeals stated that the stipulated divorce judgment that the parties had agreed to in 2009 was enforceable even though it treated a child for whom the parties were legal guardians as a child of the marriage. Under Oregon law, a child of the marriage is a biological child of the parties or a child whom the parties adopted during the marriage. The former husband and wife had two biological children and were legal guardians of the husband’s nephew, who had lived with them since birth. The stipulated judgment determined custody, parenting time, and child support for all three children, treating all of them as children of the marriage. The husband sought to modify the child support award, arguing that the court had no authority to approve or enforce a judgment which he believed was void. The court stated that it would enforce a stipulated judgment as long as it didn’t violate law or public policy even if the trial court would have lacked authority to order the parties to provide support for the nephew.

The entire opinion can be found here.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision to continue a restraining order after a hearing. The court found that, although the respondent had sent the petitioner harassing text messages, and had threatened to expose damaging information about her to the public, he had not placed her in fear of imminent bodily injury, which is the standard under the Family Abuse Prevention Act.

 The entire opinion can be found here:

• A streaming video captioned “An Introduction to Mediation”
• A link to research on parenting time and parental involvement.
• More community resources.

Check out the revised site here.

What is interesting about the ruling is that the judgment specifically said that the life insurance provision was for the purpose of securing both parties’ support obligations.  Neither party had a support obligation.  The Court of Appeals, none the less, found that the obligation still existed.  This case shows the long term implications of agreements reached in judgments.  It is crucial that your attorney informs you of the long term effects of your judgment and that your attorney is up to date with current case law.

The lawyers at Stephens Margolin PC strive to assist their clients in understanding the long range implications of their agreements.

The lawyers at Stephens Margolin PC have experience drafting and reviewing prenuptial and postnuptial agreements.

1. Create Rituals. Married couples who celebrated religious holiday traditions together were happier in their marriages.
2. Be a Daredevil. When couples pursue exciting activities together, they have more overall marital satisfaction.
3. Sleep Well Together. Men who slept better at night were more likely to feel positive about their relationship the following day.
4. Support Each Other. Research shows that when a spouse feels supported even in daily obligations, he or she is significantly happier in marriage.
5. Build Your Career.  In dual carer marriages, couples who enjoyed their working lifestyles were happier in their marriages, even if they had to work long hours.