Court Opinion

ID: 9856509
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:49:19.821678+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:52.617083
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE CARRIGAN
dissenting:
The majority opinion holds: “There is no evidence here of an emergency situation which could justify the district court in assuming jurisdiction pursuant to section 14-13-104(l)(c).” That is the only provision of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act under which the trial court purported to exercise jurisdiction. Having held that the trial court has no jurisdiction over the child’s custody, we cannot — consistent with law and logic — order the trial court to enforce conditions or limitations affecting the child’s custody.
While I share the majority’s concern for the child’s welfare, I am confident that the Oregon courts will be similarly motivated. Moreover, the mother, who has not violated the custody order of any court, should not be required to endure further delay or bear further expense as a result of the father’s having violated the prior custody order.
I am authorized to state that MR. JUSTICE LEE joins in this dissent.