Case Name: In the Matter of the Marriage of RADCLIFFE, nka Radcliffe Kerr, Petitioner, and RADCLIFFE, Respondent. STATE ex rel RADCLIFFE, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. RADCLIFFE KERR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1987-02-04
Citations: 83 Or. App. 522
Docket Number: 80-1733-E; CA A38239
Parties: In the Matter of the Marriage of RADCLIFFE, nka Radcliffe Kerr, Petitioner, and RADCLIFFE, Respondent. STATE ex rel RADCLIFFE, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. RADCLIFFE KERR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Warden, Presiding Judge, and Van Hoomissen and Young, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 83
Pages: 522–523

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted January 14,
reversed and remanded February 4, 1987
In the Matter of the Marriage of RADCLIFFE, nka Radcliffe Kerr, Petitioner, and RADCLIFFE, Respondent. STATE ex rel RADCLIFFE, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. RADCLIFFE KERR, Defendant-Appellant.
(80-1733-E; CA A38239)
732 P2d 90
Michael D. Jeske, Grants Pass, argued the cause and submitted the brief for appellant.
No appearance for respondent.
Before Warden, Presiding Judge, and Van Hoomissen and Young, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals from a trial court order holding her in criminal contempt for wilful violation of a visitation order. She was sentenced to serve 30 days in jail and fined $300. The sentence and the fine were suspended, and she was placed on 5-year probation. The dispositive issue is whether the order is sufficient. It is not. We reverse and remand.
Defendant contends, inter alia, that the order is insufficient, because it does not specifically identify the statutory basis on which it is entered. We agree. See ORS 33.020; State ex rel AFSD v. Burkhart, 80 Or App 681, 723 P2d 374 (1986).
Defendant's other assignments of error lack merit.
Reversed and remanded.