Oregon

Statutory framework; factor structure: 6.

Authority

Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.137(1)

Source framework

Statutory

Factor structure

6

Operative language

shall

Catch-all language

§ 107.137(2) refers to other relevant factors

Presumptions in the original survey

DV rebuttable; joint custody requires both parents' agreement, § 107.169(3)

Child's voice / age rule

none

Compare best interests nationally

Irreconcilable differences causing irremediable breakdown under § 107.025. The additional § 107.015 eligibility conditions must also be included in an inventory of grounds for dissolution.

Authority

Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 107.015, .025, .036.

Grounds without a misconduct showing

Irreconcilable differences causing irremediable breakdown under § 107.025. The additional § 107.015 eligibility conditions must also be included in an inventory of grounds for dissolution.

Other grounds and proof conditions

Section 107.015 expressly permits dissolution OR annulment for lack of age or understanding capacity, or consent obtained by force or fraud, if not subsequently ratified. Section 107.036 abolishes fault as a basis for dissolution, annulment or separation.

Separation

none

Timing

The former general 90-day waiting period in ORS 107.065 was repealed by 2011 Or. Laws ch. 114 (HB 2686). Separately, when a petition for conciliation jurisdiction is filed, ORS 107.560(1) generally bars trial or a merits hearing in the parties’ domestic relations suit until 45 days after that filing; the court may waive the period on stipulation or a written motion supported by an affidavit establishing facts warranting waiver (§ 107.560(2)).

Relief without dissolution

Yes, § 107.025(2), permanent, unlimited or temporary separation

Compare divorce grounds nationally

No general relocation burden allocation identified. Cooksey’s attributed result remains that the moving parent offered no evidence of benefit to the child; ordinary custody-modification requirements are separate.

Authority

ORS 107.159

Court test

general best-interest factors (no relocation-specific list)

Burden classification

no general relocation allocation identified

Notice classification

yes

Trigger classification

mileage threshold

Effect of silence

No deemed-consent procedure specified in § 107.159; existing order terms remain separate

What the court weighs

A request to relocate is decided on the child's best interests under ORS 107.137(1) (emotional ties, interest in and attitude toward the child, continuity, abuse, primary caregiver, willingness to foster the other parent's relationship) and case law (Cooksey, 2005, read: the question is whether the child is 'better served' by relocating, and a relocation-only dispute over a parenting plan needs no substantial change in circumstances). The court must not focus on distance to the exclusion of the other factors (Stancliff, 2022). No relocation factor list.

Who carries the burden

For a change of custody, the moving party must prove a change of circumstances and that a change is in the child's best interests (Boldt, 344 Or at 9). For a relocation request, no case read states a formal burden. Cooksey (2005) rejected a mover's argument that a move must be allowed absent proof of harm and affirmed a restraint because the mother did not show the move would benefit the child.

Notice and safety exceptions

Yes, but only through the order. Every court order or judgment granting custody of a minor child and parenting time or visitation rights must include a provision that neither parent may move to a residence more than 60 miles further distant from the other parent without giving the other parent reasonable notice of the change of residence and providing a copy of the notice to the court. Orders under ORS 107.700 to 107.735 are excepted. No number of days. A court may suspend the requirement for good cause on ex parte or other motion (ORS 107.159(2)).

Which moves trigger the rule

A move to a residence more than 60 miles further distant from the other parent. Slaughter and Harris confirms notice is legally required only for such a move.

Objections and the effect of silence

Section 107.159 does not specify a relocation-objection deadline or deemed-consent scheme. A parent may seek custody or parenting-time modification; existing order terms remain separate.

The modification threshold

A parent's move alone does not support a change of custody. The court must find the move significantly and adversely affects a parent's capacity to care for the child. Lack of advance notice is not by itself a basis (Slaughter and Harris, 2018). Joint custody modification needs changed circumstances and best interest (ORS 107.169(5)).

Other qualifications

§ 107.159 requires a notice term in the specified custody/parenting-time order, measured as added distance from the other parent rather than distance from the old home. Its protective-order exclusion and good-cause suspension remain separate.

Important qualification

No express allocation was found. Cooksey nevertheless upheld a restraint where the moving parent offered no evidence that relocation would benefit the child.

Burden summary

No general allocation identified

Notice summary

Notice required; no fixed day count

Trigger summary

more than 60 miles farther from the other parent

Compare parental relocation nationally