Case Name: In the Matter of the Adoption of Shawna Marie Strain, formerly known as Shawna Marie Madden, aka Shawna Marie Hiers. In the Matter of the Guardianship of Shawna Marie Hiers, also known as Shana Meri Hiers, and Shawna Marie Strain, formerly known as Shawna Marie Madden. STATE ex rel HIERS, Respondent, v. STRAIN, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1982-03-15
Citations: 56 Or. App. 402
Docket Number: No. 209 and 2351, CA 19930
Parties: In the Matter of the Adoption of Shawna Marie Strain, formerly known as Shawna Marie Madden, aka Shawna Marie Hiers. In the Matter of the Guardianship of Shawna Marie Hiers, also known as Shana Meri Hiers, and Shawna Marie Strain, formerly known as Shawna Marie Madden. STATE ex rel HIERS, Respondent, v. STRAIN, Appellant.
Judges: Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, Warden, Judge, and Fort, Senior Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 56
Pages: 402–403

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted November 20, 1981,
judgment reversed, and order vacated March 15, 1982
In the Matter of the Adoption of Shawna Marie Strain, formerly known as Shawna Marie Madden, aka Shawna Marie Hiers. In the Matter of the Guardianship of Shawna Marie Hiers, also known as Shana Meri Hiers, and Shawna Marie Strain, formerly known as Shawna Marie Madden. STATE ex rel HIERS, Respondent, v. STRAIN, Appellant.
(No. 209 and 2351, CA 19930)
642 P2d 315
Myron Gitnes, Lakeview, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
No appearance for respondent Hiers.
No appearance for respondent State of Oregon.
Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, Warden, Judge, and Fort, Senior Judge.
PER CURIAM
Fort, S. J., vice Warren, J.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Albert H. Strain appeals from a judgment holding him in contempt of court in connection with an adoption proceeding for failure to comply with its order to deliver custody of a child and committing him to jail. The only issue we need address is the adequacy of the court's findings to support the contempt order.
In State ex rel Bassett v. Bassett, 166 Or 628, 113 P2d 432, 114 P2d 546 (1941), a contempt proceeding arising out of a divorce suit, the Supreme Court said:
"We hold further, in accordance with the authorities cited, that it should appear from the findings entered both that the defendant had failed to perform the act enjoined by the decree and that it was within his power to do so. (Emphasis supplied.) 166 Or at 640.
The trial court here made no finding that it was within appellant's power to deliver the child at the time of the show cause hearing or at the time judgment was imposed. It follows that the judgment of contempt must be set aside and the order of commitment vacated.
Judgment of contempt reversed; order of commitment vacated.