Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In Re the Marriage of O'Donnell-Lamont

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided March 20, 2003No. C98 1284 DR; A112960Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDeits, C. J.

I agree with the lead opinion that the 2001 amendments to ORS 109.119 apply to this case. For the reasons articulated by Judge Landau, however, I believe that this case should be remanded to develop the factual record. However, because the case will not be remanded, I write separately to emphasize the concerns about the lead opinion’s statutory analysis that Judge Landau identifies.

The lead opinion reasons, in part, that, because the 2001 amendments apply,

“[t]he presumption in ORS 109.119(2)(a), that a legal parent acts in the best interests of the child, is the legislature’s statement of the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Troxel v. GranvilleSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  3. In the Matter of Marriage of O'donnell-Lamont and LamontCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API