2017 ORS 25.280¹
Formula amount presumed correct
  • rebuttal of presumption
  • criteria

In any judicial or administrative proceeding for the establishment or modification of a child support obligation under ORS chapter 107, 108, 109, 110 or 416 or ORS 419B.400 (Authority to order support), 419B.923 (Modifying or setting aside order or judgment), 419C.590 (Authority of court to order support) or 419C.610 (Authority to modify or set aside orders), the amount of support determined by the formula established under ORS 25.275 (Formula for determining child support awards) is presumed to be the correct amount of the obligation. This is a rebuttable presumption and a written finding or a specific finding on the record that the application of the formula would be unjust or inappropriate in a particular case is sufficient to rebut the presumption. The following criteria shall be considered in making the finding:

(1) Evidence of the other available resources of a parent;

(2) The reasonable necessities of a parent;

(3) The net income of a parent remaining after withholdings required by law or as a condition of employment;

(4) A parent’s ability to borrow;

(5) The number and needs of other dependents of a parent;

(6) The special hardships of a parent including, but not limited to, any medical circumstances of a parent affecting the parent’s ability to pay child support;

(7) The needs of the child;

(8) The desirability of the custodial parent remaining in the home as a full-time parent and homemaker;

(9) The tax consequences, if any, to both parents resulting from spousal support awarded and determination of which parent will name the child as a dependent; and

(10) The financial advantage afforded a parent’s household by the income of a spouse or another person with whom the parent lives in a relationship similar to that of a spouse. [1989 c.811 §4; 1993 c.33 §287; 1993 c.354 §1; 1995 c.608 §30; 2001 c.622 §42; 2007 c.71 §8; 2007 c.356 §3; 2015 c.629 §1]

Notes of Decisions

Court may find that presumptive amount is unjust or inappropriate but determina­tion must be based on evidence in record. Christopherson and Christopherson, 112 Or App 166, 827 P2d 950 (1992)

Considera­tion of future income potential was improper in determining whether presump­tion of correctness was rebutted. Moore and Moore, 112 Or App 503, 829 P2d 704 (1992); Wesley and Wesley, 125 Or App 128, 865 P2d 432 (1993)

Educa­tional expenses of child may justify devia­tion from presumed amount of child support provided by this sec­tion and relevant guide­lines, but those expenses are part of and not in addi­tion to child support obliga­tion and are subject to statutory limita­tions of such obliga­tion. Wiebe and Wiebe, 113 Or App 535, 833 P2d 333 (1992)

Where child receives social security disability pay­ments, pay­ments are not income attributable to parent but may affect need of child and render presumptive support guide­line amount inappropriate. Lawhorn and Lawhorn, 119 Or App 225, 850 P2d 1126 (1993); Krompel and Krompel, 129 Or App 394, 879 P2d 223 (1994)

Support beyond guide­lines cap must primarily be based on child’s needs, not available resources. Stringer v. Brandt, 128 Or App 502, 877 P2d 100 (1994)

Guide­line amount is amount to actually be paid and is not subject to being reduced by other pro­vi­sions of judg­ment. Rossi and Rossi, 128 Or App 536, 876 P2d 820 (1994)

Court is not limited to considera­tion of listed rebuttal criteria as basis for departing from child support guide­line. Petersen and Petersen, 132 Or App 190, 888 P2d 23 (1994); Grile and Grile, 138 Or App 630, 909 P2d 1248 (1996); In the Matter of Mock and Sceva, 143 Or App 362, 923 P2d 1310 (1996)

Neither disparity of income between parties nor joint legal custody of child is valid basis for rebutting presumptive support amount. Larkin and Larkin, 146 Or App 310, 932 P2d 115 (1997)

Court is not re­quired to consider effect of child’s income on child’s needs when setting support amount in accordance with guide­lines. Redler and Redler, 153 Or App 135, 956 P2d 232 (1998), aff’d 330 Or 51, 996 P2d 963 (2000)

Where marital assets are placed in trust for children, trust assets do not affect child support obliga­tion until assets are distributed to children. Butler and Butler, 160 Or App 314, 981 P2d 389 (1999)

Law Review Cita­tions

69 OLR 708 (1990)

Notes of Decisions

Guide­lines apply to original determina­tions where substantial change in circumstances warrants change in support amount or where obliga­tion is collected through enforcing agency. Gay and Gay, 108 Or App 121, 814 P2d 543 (1991)

Once change of circumstances sufficient to warrant modifica­tion in any manner is shown, guide­lines es­tab­lished under these sec­tions control amount of child support awarded. Grage and Grage, 109 Or App 311, 819 P2d 322 (1991)

Although trial court may consider potential income under Uniform Child Support Guide­lines, presump­tion that parent can work full-time may be rebutted by showing that parent is unable to work full-time by reason of injury, and court may not speculate as to what parent could make after recovery from injury. Uppendahl and Uppendahl, 112 Or App 283, 828 P2d 1048 (1992)

Where expenses paid by noncustodial parent are type that do not reduce custodial parent cost of raising child, expenses may not be set off against support obliga­tion. Longcor and Longcor, 114 Or App 89, 834 P2d 479 (1992)

Law Review Cita­tions

26 WLR 1019 (1990); 69 OLR 716 (1990)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 25—Support Enforcement, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors025.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 25, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano025.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.