Court Opinion

ID: 9572169
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:39:16.713407+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:45.767250
License: Public Domain

*414WARREN, J.
Father appeals from an order modifying the custody provision of a dissolution judgment to transfer custody from him to mother.
In April, 1984, the parties entered into an agreement which gave father custody of the child. The agreement followed a custody investigation by Multnomah County Family Services, which recommended that custody be given to father. The agreement was incorporated into a dissolution judgment; neither party appeared in court. Mother had signed the agreement with no intention of following it, and in May, 1984, she absconded with the child to North Carolina. She secreted the child’s whereabouts from father during the two years she spent in North Carolina. In May, 1986, mother turned herself in to the authorities, and she later pled guilty to custodial interference in the third degree, a Class C felony. She was placed on probation for two years. She then moved to modify the custody provision of the dissolution judgment to gain sole custody of child.
At trial, experts and family members testified that the child would be better off with mother, but that both parents were fit. The trial court found that there was no substantial change of circumstances but decided that, because the original custody judgment was never litigated, a showing of changed circumstances was not required.
Father argues that a substantial change in circumstances is required to change custody and that there was none here. We agree with father that a substantial change of circumstances is required. Greisamer and Greisamer, 276 Or 397, 555 P2d 28 (1976); Niedert and Niedert, 28 Or App 309, 559 P2d 515, rev den (1977). We are not free to disregard that holding of the Supreme Court. On de novo review, we agree with the trial court and father that there was no substantial change of circumstances. Mother cannot rely on evidence of her strengthened relationship with her child which resulted from her felonious abduction and secreting of him to show a substantial change of circumstances. So to hold would encourage custodial interference such as occurred here to obtain an advantage in custody disputes. The trial court erred in modifying the custody provision. Without evidence of a change in circumstances, we do not reach the issue of the child’s best *415interests. Remillard and Remillard, 30 Or App 1111, 1114, 569 P2d 651 (1977).
Reversed and remanded with instructions to award custody to father.