Opinion ID: 2612476
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Remedy, Extension of Rights

Text: In Hale v. Port of Portland, supra, 308 Or. at 525, 783 P.2d 506, this court stated: A person who is denied what a favored class receives has standing to demand equal treatment, though this leaves an issue whether to strike down the special privilege or to extend it beyond the favored class. In determining whether to strike down the special privilege or to extend it beyond the favored class (in this case, to other citizens), we commonly consider the relief sought by the person who    has standing to demand equal treatment, the intentions expressed by the makers of the law granting the privilege, and whether the validity of the law granting favoritism is challengeable on grounds other than Article I, section 20. Here father seeks extension of the privilege so that he may enjoy its protective benefit; lawmakers have disclosed no intent to deny him that privilege but, rather, an intent that parents enjoy the privilege when faced with a termination; no lesser ground for challenge is present. Where an impermissible classification is utilized by the legislature, we have decided in favor of equalizing privileges. Employment Div. v. Rogue Valley Youth for Christ, supra ; State ex rel. Bradley, supra; Hewitt v. SAIF, supra . We hold that the privilege of having counsel appointed in termination cases under ORS chapter 419 applies equally to terminations by adoption under ORS chapter 109.