Case Name: In the Matter of the Marriage of KIRK, Appellant - Cross-Respondent, and KIRK Respondent - Cross-Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1981-05-18
Citations: 52 Or. App. 353
Docket Number: No. 15-80-04077, CA 19591
Parties: In the Matter of the Marriage of KIRK, Appellant - Cross-Respondent, and KIRK Respondent - Cross-Appellant.
Judges: Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warden and Warren, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 52
Pages: 353–355

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted April 27,
affirmed as modified May 18,
reconsideration granted; former opinion modified (53 Or App 87, 630 P2d 923) July 6, 1981
In the Matter of the Marriage of KIRK, Appellant - Cross-Respondent, and KIRK Respondent - Cross-Appellant.
(No. 15-80-04077, CA 19591)
628 P2d 453
Harold R. Daughters, Eugene, argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant - cross-respondent.
Diane DePaolis, Eugene, argued the cause for respondent - cross-appellant. With her on the brief wras Lane County Legal Aid Service, Eugene.
Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warden and Warren, Judges.
PER CURIAM.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Our only concern on this appeal and cross-appeal is with the father's contention in his cross-appeal that the trial court, in modifying the visitation portions of the decree, continued, without apparent reason, a provision contained in an earlier "Temporary Order of Visitation" entered by an Idaho court on the stipulation of the parties. The provision about which he complains is that "another adult person shall be present, at the option and choice of the [mother]," during the two days per month father has visitation rights.
The trial court's modification of the Idaho order extended father's visitation, without any requirement that another adult person be present, to include one week of the Christmas vacation each year and two weeks during the summers of 1981 and 1982, and for one month each summer thereafter. We find nothing in the record, which explains why the trial court continued the prior requirement of adult supervision of visitation for the two days per month, but no such supervision during the more extended periods of visitation during Christmas vacations and the summers. We discern no reason why that apparent inconsistency is included in the order modifying the visitation rights, and conclude that the requirement of adult supervision contained in paragraph 1. a) should be deleted.
Accordingly, the order modifying the visitation rights is modified by striking from paragraph 1. a) the sentence: "During these monthly visitations another adult person shall be present, at the option and choice of the Plaintiff."
Affirmed as modified. No costs to either party.