ORS 109.730¹

(Title not available: statute has been repealed or renumbered.)

Note

Repealed as of October 23, 1999

Notes of Decisions

Long-term abduc­tion of child can result in jurisdic­tion vesting in state where child is located. Grubs v. Ross, 291 Or 263, 630 P2d 353 (1981)

In abduc­tion cases, jurisdic­tion of decree state continues for reasonable period of time following abduc­tion. Grubs v. Ross, 291 Or 263, 630 P2d 353 (1981)

Where issues may arise under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdic­tion Act, before a court may exercise jurisdic­tion to award custody of mi­nor children under ORS 107.105 (Provisions of judgment), a determina­tion must be made as to whether the court has jurisdic­tion under this sec­tion. State ex rel Pennsylvania v. Stork, 56 Or App 335, 641 P2d 660 (1982), Sup Ct review denied

Court has continuing jurisdic­tion over subject of child custody if Oregon was home state of child at time pro­ceed­ing began but is no longer home state. Mannix and Mannix, 97 Or App 395, 776 P2d 873 (1989)

Where marriage had already been dissolved in an­oth­er state by time ac­tion came to trial in Oregon but Oregon had jurisdic­tion over children, dismissal of dissolu­tion ac­tion did not prevent treating custody as separate cause of ac­tion. Mackie and Mackie, 113 Or App 273, 832 P2d 1240 (1992)

Adop­tion agency was "per­son acting as parent" for purpose of determining home state of child. Hylland v. Doe, 126 Or App 86, 867 P2d 551 (1994), Sup Ct review denied

Legal efforts to regain access to child do not, standing alone, evidence substantial expression of concern showing deliberate, inten­tional and good faith interest in maintaining parent-child rela­tionship. Stubbs v. Weathersby, 320 Or 620, 892 P2d 991 (1995)

Short dura­tion of child's presence in state does not automatically prevent presence from creating "significant connec­tion" between child and state. McCulley v. Bone, 160 Or App 24, 979 P2d 779 (1999)