LAW MARKS: Mark Johnson's occasional-and occasionally irreverent-review of recent developments in family law and civil procedure. For August 2002, topics include setting the time for payment of a judgment lien, moving custodial parents, returning of children under the Hague convention, and visiting a dog.
In Arand and Arand, filed on July 3, the Court of Appeals extended the time for the wife's payment of the husband's lien on the family home from two years to five, giving the mother time to complete her schooling and providing stability for the children. Although such orders were commonplace at one time, it has been some 20 years since the court last wrote an opinion imposing one. In the 1997 case of Davis and Davis, the court reversed the trial judge's order that the house be sold when the child was grown and instead ordered that it be sold immediately. Both cases seemed to turn on the financial needs of the parents more than they did on the psychological needs of the children.
In a pair of cases decided in 2002, Colson and Peil on July 24 and Dillard and Dillard [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A110428.htm] on January 23, the Court of Appeals reiterates the traditional rule that a proposed move by the custodial parent is not ordinarily a change in circumstances with regard to child custody. The court decided two cases in the early 1990's, Sleight v. Cazone in 1990 and Duckett and Duckett in 1995, each of which gave a somewhat fearsome indication that the court might start ordering custodial parents not to move.
Just in case you were wondering… The federal district court for Minnesota held in Silverman v. Silverman that returning children to Israel for a custody determination would pose a "grave risk of harm" such that the return was not required by the Hague convention on international child abduction. The court for the Eastern District Virginia held in Escaf v. Rodriquez that a similar return to Colombia would not pose such a risk.
In Desanctis v. Pritchard, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania refused enforcement of agreed visits with the parties' dog, Barney. Notwithstanding the parties' views, the court held, Barney was personal property and was not a child. "Barney and his social schedule," the court held, "belong solely to [the wife]." The court also noted that the husband had failed to visit Barney at all during the parties' four-year separation.
Mark Johnson is an appeals attorney practicing in Portland, Oregon. He also provides attorney coaching, consulting, and collaboration on a wide range of family law issues. Mark is available to act as a reference judge in Oregon family law cases.
Please share this newsletter with your colleagues. If you want to receive your own e-mailed copy of the newsletter in the future, please contact me and we will add your name to the distribution list.
Johnson & Lechman-Su PC, 1200 Weatherly Building, 516 SE Morrison Street, Portland, Oregon 97214
Home | About Us | Family Law | News | Contact Us | Directions/Parking | Site Map