Court Opinion

ID: 9777261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:04:44.287693+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:51.117877
License: Public Domain

*102ORTEGA, J.
Petitioner appeals from a general judgment denying her petition for a court-ordered birth certificate for her minor son. ORS 432.142. On de novo review, we reverse and remand.
Petitioner, a resident of Washington State, alleges that she gave birth to her son in a migrant camp near North Plains, Oregon, on January 22, 2005. She testified that she lived at the migrant camp in North Plains with her cousin Rosaura Hernandez from November 2004 to February 2005. She asserted that she gave birth to her son while in Oregon, but that she never sought prenatal care or any medical care in Oregon after the birth. According to petitioner, due to an incident around the time of her oldest daughter’s birth, she feared that her son’s father would be arrested if authorities were informed that petitioner and the father had conceived another child. Petitioner testified that Hernandez was the only other person present at the birth and that Hernandez helped deliver the baby. She asserted that she never sought medical care in Oregon, that she “hardly ever” left Hernandez’s house after the birth, and that she did not apply for a birth certificate at that time. Further, she admitted that she had no documentation that would verify that she was in Oregon at the time of her son’s birth.
Hernandez also testified and corroborated petitioner’s account. She acknowledged that she and petitioner were the only attendees to the birth and that she assisted with the delivery. Hernandez confirmed that, during petitioner’s time in Oregon, petitioner rarely left the house because it was winter.
Petitioner applied to the State Registrar of the Center for Health Statistics of the Department of Human Services under ORS 432.140 for issuance of a delayed birth certificate. That statute provides, in relevant part:
“(1) When a certificate of birth of a person bom in this state has not been filed within one year after the date of birth, a delayed certificate of birth may be filed in accordance with rules of the State Registrar * * *. No delayed certificate shall be registered until the evidentiary requirements as specified by rule have been met.
*103* * * *
“(4)(a) When an applicant does not submit the minimum documentation required by rule of the state registrar for delayed registration or when the state registrar has cause to question the validity or adequacy of the applicant’s sworn statement or the documentary evidence, and if the deficiencies are not corrected, the state registrar shall not register the delayed certificate of birth and shall enter an order to that effect stating the reasons for the action. The state registrar shall advise the applicant of the right to appeal under ORS 183.480 to 183.484.”
In accordance with the statute, the state registrar has promulgated rules that establish the minimum documentation required for issuance of a delayed birth certificate. See OAR 333-011-0043(4) - (11). In this case, the state registrar denied petitioner’s application because the rule required petitioner to submit two pieces of documentary evidence in support of the delayed birth certificate, but petitioner submitted only one acceptable document, an affidavit in which she attested to her son’s birth in Oregon.1 OAR 333-011-0043(7) (requiring two pieces of documentary evidence when the application is filed within seven years of the birth date, only one of which can be an affidavit of personal knowledge). Petitioner then, as provided by ORS 432.142, filed the petition that is at issue on appeal.
ORS 432.142 provides the procedure for an applicant to seek a court-ordered birth certificate in the event that the state registrar has refused to issue a delayed birth certificate. We set out that statute in full because it is important to the discussion that follows.
“(1) If the [state registrar] refuses to file a delayed certificate of birth under the provisions of ORS 432.140, the applicant may file a signed and sworn petition with a court of competent jurisdiction seeking an order establishing a record of the date and place of birth and the parentage of the person whose birth is to be registered.
*104“(2) The petition shall be made on a form prescribed and furnished or approved by the state registrar and shall allege:
“(a) That the person for whom a delayed certificate of birth is sought was born in this state;
“(b) That no certificate of birth of the person can be found in the records of the Center for Health Statistics;
“(c) That diligent efforts by the petitioner have failed to obtain the evidence required in accordance with ORS 432.140 and rules adopted pursuant thereto;
“(d) That the state registrar has refused to file a delayed certificate of birth; and
“(e) Such other allegations as may be required under ORS 183.480 and 183.484.
“(3) The petition shall be accompanied by a statement made in accordance with ORS 432.140 and all documentary evidence which was submitted to the state registrar in support of the filing.
“(4) The court shall fix a time and place for hearing the petition and shall give the state registrar notice of the hearing. The state registrar or an authorized representative may appear and testify in the proceeding.
“(5) If the court finds, from the evidence presented, that the person for whom a delayed certificate of birth is sought was born in this state, it shall make findings as to the place and date of birth, parentage and such other findings as may be required and shall issue an order, on a form prescribed and furnished or approved by the state registrar, to establish a court-ordered certificate of birth. This order shall include the birth data to be registered, a description of the evidence presented and the date of the court’s action.
“(6) The clerk of the court shall forward each order to the state registrar not later than the 10th day of the calendar month following the month in which it was entered. The order shall be registered by the state registrar and shall constitute the certificate of birth.”
In this case, the testimony of petitioner and Hernandez was the only evidence presented on petitioner’s behalf at the hearing; the affidavits that she had submitted to the state *105registrar under ORS 432.140 were also attached to her petition to the court. At the start of the hearing, the state registrar took the position that if the court “believe[d that] the testimony of the witnesses is not determinative of the fact — the alleged fact of whether [petitioner’s son] was born in the [S]tate of Oregon * * * we ask that you deny the delayed birth certificate.” The court then asked the state registrar if the law allowed the court to grant the petition if it found that the “testimony is determinative of that fact[.]” The state registrar responded that the court could grant the relief requested if the court found the testimony sufficient to establish the facts at issue because the court’s determination was subject to a “totality of the evidence standard.” At the close of testimony, petitioner urged the court to grant the petition based on the testimony of the two witnesses, and because the state did not offer any contradictory evidence.
The court then filed a letter opinion denying the petition, but stated that the court would “be pleased” to review any additional corroborating evidence submitted by petitioner before judgment was entered. In its letter opinion, the court explained that, although this is an “unfortunate case,” there is
“simply no evidence in the record to corroborate the testimony of [petitioner,] who has not lived in Oregon for more than 3 years. The court is certainly mindful of the need for a birth certificate for [son], but absent corroborating evidence, I do not find that [petitioner has met [her] burden of proof. * * * If there is additional evidence that can be presented, I would be pleased to review that.”
Curiously, while no documentary evidence was submitted to corroborate petitioner’s testimony, petitioner did produce corroborating testimonial evidence, and the court did not indicate any problems with that evidence. In all events, the court subsequently entered a general judgment denying the petition.
On appeal, petitioner assigns error to the trial court’s ruling that she failed to meet her burden of proof because she lacked documentary evidence of her son’s birth. In particular, she argues that the trial court misinterpreted ORS 432.142 because it denied her petition specifically *106because she lacked documentary evidence. That is, petitioner contends that the statute allows the court to enter a court-ordered birth certificate based solely on testimonial or other nondocumentary evidence, and the court erred as a matter of law by determining otherwise.
The state registrar takes issue with petitioner’s characterization of the trial court’s decision, maintaining that the letter opinion does not, as petitioner contends, require petitioner to present documentary evidence to qualify for a court-ordered delayed birth certificate under ORS 432.142.2 Rather, the state registrar contends, the court’s letter opinion simply recounts the types of evidence that petitioner did and did not present and indicates that, ultimately, the court was not persuaded by the evidence presented. That is, the decision was based on a failure of proof, rather than an incorrect interpretation of the statute.
Before we can reach the merits of this appeal, we must determine the source of our appellate jurisdiction because it dictates our standard of review. In her brief, petitioner asserts that she is appealing pursuant to ORS 183.500, which authorizes appeals from judicial review proceedings in a circuit court under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The state registrar cites ORS 19.205(5) as the source of our appellate jurisdiction. ORS 19.205(5) grants the right to appeal from a circuit court decision in any “special statutory proceeding.” However, both parties merely reference the statutes in passing and, despite their apparent disagreement, they offer no argument on the issue.
A careful reading of the relevant statutes clarifies that the process set forth in ORS 432.142 is separate from any judicial review proceedings available under the APA. However, before we discuss the specific statute at issue in this case, we begin with some background and historical context of Oregon’s vital statistics laws in general and the statutes addressing delayed birth certificates in particular.
*107In general, Oregon’s vital statistics laws have closely tracked the provisions found in the Model State Vital Statistics Act (Model Act). The federal Bureau of the Census submitted the first Model Act in 1907 in an effort to bring some uniformity to national vital records and statistics. Alice M. Hetzel, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Vital Statistics System Major Activities and Developments, 1950-95, 5 (1997). In an effort to continually improve the national vital statistics system and keep the Model Act current with “changing demands upon State vital records systems,” the act was revised in 1941, 1959, 1977, and 1992. Id. at 6. After each such revision, the Oregon legislature has generally revised Oregon law to reflect those changes and to keep Oregon’s system of issuing vital records and collecting vital statistics in conformity with the national standards. See Or Laws 1941, ch 130 (enacting comprehensive vital statistics statutes); Or Laws 1983, ch 709 (revising ORS chapter 432 to reflect changes from the 1977 Revision to the Model Act); Or Laws 1997, ch 783 (revising ORS chapter 432 to reflect changes from the 1992 Revision to the Model Act).
As for delayed birth certificates, the Oregon legislature enacted a series of laws from 1939 through 1943 that established a method for registering previously unrecorded births. Briefly, the legislature created a judicial procedure in 1939 whereby a person with an unregistered birth could file an application, supported by affidavits, with the county probate judge. Or Laws 1939, ch 165. The judge was required to examine the application, take testimony as needed, and then issue an order, if satisfied that the facts were as stated, to the state health officer to register the birth. Id.
In 1941, the legislature enacted a comprehensive rewrite of Oregon’s vital statistics laws, which included a provision that stands as a precursor to ORS 432.140. Or Laws 1941, ch 130, §§ 16-17. The 1941 law stated that the acceptance of a birth certificate more than six months after the time prescribed for filing “shall be subject to regulations in which the board shall prescribe in detail the proofs to be submitted by any applicant for delayed filing * * *, or to the order *108of the county court or any other court of competent jurisdiction.” Id. § 16. In addition, the law also required the state registrar to distinctly mark the birth certificate “delayed” and to include a summary statement of the “evidence submitted in support of’ the delayed filing. Id. § 17.
In 1943, the legislature revised the judicial procedure that was originally enacted in 1939 and provided for a more comprehensive court proceeding. Or Laws 1943, ch 118 (see also ORS 432.255 to 432.280 (1953)). That procedure allowed a person whose birth had not been recorded to file a verified petition in circuit court setting forth the facts of the petitioner’s birth. Id. § 1. The petitioner was required to serve the district attorney with the petition, and after service, the petitioner was allowed to appear before the court and present “such evidence as is available in support of’ the statements of the petition. Id. §§ 2-3. The district attorney was allowed to appear and examine witnesses or submit proof in support or in objection to the petition. Id. If the court was satisfied that the facts stated in the petition were supported by substantial evidence, the court was to make findings as to the facts of the birth and order the state registrar to register the birth. Id. §§ 4-5.
The delayed birth certificate statutes remained essentially unchanged until 1983, when the legislature amended ORS chapter 432 in response to the 1977 Model Act revisions. Or Laws 1983, ch 709. The 1977 Model Act revisions required a petitioner to first apply to the applicable administrative agency for a delayed birth certificate before filing a petition in court. Model State Vital Statistics Act § 10 (1977). Oregon, however, altered the wording from the Model Act and added provisions specific to Oregon’s judicial review process under the APA. The law ultimately enacted by the legislature explicitly placed any “appeal” of the state registrar’s denial of a delayed birth certificate under the judicial review provisions of the APA.
After the 1983 amendment to ORS 432.140(4)(a), the statute stated:
“When an applicant does not submit the minimum documentation required by the rule of the state registrar for *109delayed registration or when the state registrar has reasonable cause to question the validity or adequacy of the applicant’s sworn statement or the documentary evidence * * * the state registrar shall not register the delayed certificate of birth and shall enter an order to that effect stating the reasons for the action. The state registrar shall advise the applicant of the right to appeal under ORS 183.480 and 183.484.”
The legislature also completely revamped ORS 432.135 and renumbered the provision ORS 432.142. Of particular note, after the amendment, ORS 432.142(1) stated that:
“[i]f application for a delayed certificate of birth is ordered rejected under ORS 432.140, the applicant may appeal the order under ORS 183.480 and 183.484.”
In conjunction with the changes to ORS 432.140 and ORS 432.142, the legislature repealed the statutory provisions that provided for a separate court proceeding. Or Laws 1983, ch 709, § 45. Accordingly, the legislature brought the entire process for receiving a delayed birth certificate within the judicial review provisions of the APA.
In 1997, however, the legislature again amended the delayed birth certificate statutes as part of a larger rewrite of ORS chapter 432, this time in response to the 1992 Model Act revisions. The legislature’s 1997 amendments removed the wording in ORS 432.142(1) that “the applicant may appeal the order under ORS 183.480 and 183.484” and replaced it with language from the 1992 Model Act that “the applicant may file a signed and sworn petition with a court of competent jurisdiction seeking an order establishing a record of the date and place of birth and the parentage of the person whose birth is to be registered.” The legislature also added the provision requiring the court to set a hearing, give the state registrar notice of the hearing, and allow the state registrar to appeal and testify in the proceeding. See ORS 432.142(4). The hearing provision was originally included in the 1977 Model Act revisions, but had not been included in the 1983 revisions to the Oregon statute.
In this case, we must determine what type of process the legislature intended to provide in ORS 432.142: Did the *110legislature intend to subject all delayed birth certificate proceedings to the judicial review process, or did the legislature intend to provide for a court proceeding that is independent of judicial review? In determining legislative intent, we consider the statutory text, context, and any relevant legislative history. State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 172, 206 P3d 1042 (2009).
First, we examine the text of the statute. ORS 432.140 and ORS 432.142, by their stated terms, establish separate processes. The procedure set forth in ORS 432.140 presents a traditional administrative scheme. The applicant can apply to the state registrar for a delayed birth certificate. ORS 432.140(1). The state registrar grants or denies the application based on the evidence submitted with it, depending on whether that evidence meets the minimum documentation required by rule of the state registrar. ORS 432.140(4)(a). If the state registrar denies the application, it must issue an order stating the reasons for the denial. Id. ORS 432.140(4)(a) explicitly requires the state registrar to advise the applicant of the right to appeal the final order under ORS 183.480 to 183.484. ORS 183.480 to 183.484 provide that the circuit courts have jurisdiction in judicial review of final orders in other than contested cases and that this court has jurisdiction injudicial review of final orders in contested cases. Those APA provisions also outline the scope of authority injudicial review proceedings, where the reviewing court is limited to examining the agency’s order for errors of law, abuse of discretion, and substantial evidence. ORS 183.484(5).
The plain text of ORS 432.142, on the other hand, describes a court proceeding that is separate from the judicial review process. First, ORS 432.142(1) does not explicitly state that the process involves judicial review under the APA. And in fact, as noted, the reference in the statute that explicitly required APA review was removed by the legislature in 1997. Second, although the statute requires the petitioner to submit to the court the evidence that was supplied to the state registrar under ORS 432.140, it does not otherwise implicate any review of the state registrar’s final order denying the application. Rather, the circuit court’s role (unlike in *111judicial review proceedings under the APA) is unequivocally to make its own factual findings and to determine the ultimate fact at issue in such proceedings — whether the person for whom a delayed birth certificate is sought was born in Oregon — rather than reviewing the state registrar’s finding as to that fact. Compare Norden v. Water Resources Dept., 329 Or 641, 648-49, 996 P2d 958 (2000) (noting that the parties may develop a record in the circuit court on judicial review in other than contested cases, but that the circuit court’s role in reviewing the record is limited to review for substantial evidence).
Only one explicit reference to the APA in ORS 432.142(2)(e) survived the 1997 amendments to the statute: Subsection (2) states that any petition must allege, among other things, “[s]uch other allegations as may be required under ORS 183.480 and 183.484.” ORS 432.142(2)(e). However, we disagree with the dissent’s view that “[t]here could be no clearer textual indication that the process described in ORS 432.142 is Administrative Procedure Act (APA) review as specified in ORS 432.140 * * 243 Or App at 115 (Armstrong, J., dissenting).
Instead, we examine ORS 183.480 and ORS 183.484 to see what “allegations” the legislature intended to require by retaining those statutory references. ORS 183.480 provides, in part, that judicial review is available to “any person adversely affected or aggrieved by an order or any party to an agency proceedingt.]” ORS 183.484 states that jurisdiction in judicial review proceedings in other than contested cases is in Marion County Circuit Court or the circuit court in petitioner’s county of residence or principle place of business. It also requires any petition to state the nature of the petitioner’s interest, the facts showing how the petitioner is adversely affected or aggrieved, and the asserted grounds for reversal. As a result, the allegations that are required in ORS 432.142(2)(e) include what otherwise might be considered core justiciability concerns: that the petition is filed in an appropriate jurisdiction by a party that has a concrete interest in the case. Although the legislature’s retention of text referencing the APA in ORS 432.142(2)(e) is potentially confusing, we do not find it determinative of the nature of the *112court’s review. We also note that the petition in this case, which is on a form provided by the state registrar, is limited to exactly such allegations.
The 1997 amendments to ORS chapter 432 bolster our conclusion that ORS 432.142 creates a separate statutory proceeding. As noted, the legislature deleted any reference to an appeal under the APA and replaced it with the current language that mimics the 1992 Model Act revisions. See Krieger v. Just, 319 Or 328, 336, 876 P2d 754 (1994) (“[W]ording changes adopted from session to session are a part of context of the present version of the statute being construed.”). The 1997 amendments also added the requirement that the court shall “fix a time and place for hearing,” give the state registrar notice of the hearing, and allow the state registrar to appear and testify in the proceeding. We find this particular change significant for two reasons. First, it makes sense that the explicit hearing requirement in the 1977 Model Act revisions was excluded from the legislature’s 1983 amendments because the Oregon amendments made the delayed birth certificate process subject to the APA, which already contained procedural provisions. That is, why include a hearing requirement when the APA already has such a process in place? However, the reinsertion of the Model Act’s hearing requirement suggests that the legislature intended to move away from the APA in 1997. Second, if the legislature had intended a decision under ORS 432.142 to be subject to APA review, there would have been no reason to explicitly state that the state registrar may appear and testify in a proceeding under that statute, because the agency is a necessary party under the APA and will have notice of any hearing.
Given the statutory text and the context, we conclude that the legislature intended to return to an independent court process in which a petitioner could establish the facts of a birth separate from the administrative process.
Our conclusion that ORS 432.142 creates a separate statutory proceeding apart from judicial review under the APA leads to the next question: What is the correct standard of review? When an action arises from statute and the legislature has not expressly provided a standard of review, as is *113the case here, we examine the “essential nature of the case, including the nature of the relief sought,” to determine whether the legislature intended the claim to be legal or equitable in nature. G. I. Joe’s, Inc. v. Nizam, 183 Or App 116, 122, 50 P3d 1282 (2002); Hanzo v. deParrie, 152 Or App 525, 536, 953 P2d 1130 (1998), rev den, 328 Or 418 (1999); see also Thompson v. Coughlin, 329 Or 630, 636, 997 P2d 191 (2000). In short, we examine the pleadings to determine if the nature of the relief sought is legal or equitable. McDowell Welding & Pipefitting v. US Gypsum Co., 345 Or 272, 279, 193 P2d 9 (2008). However, even if equitable relief is pleaded, if an adequate remedy at law exists, we will not invoke equitable jurisdiction. Id. at 280.
Given the nature of the relief available under ORS 432.142, we conclude that the legislature intended the claim to be equitable in nature and, thus, subject to de novo review. ORS 19.415 (2007).3 Petitioner, pursuant to the statute, has requested a court-ordered delayed birth certificate, which is in essence a declaration by the court that petitioner’s son was born in Oregon. In addition, when the legislature transferred jurisdiction over certain family-related matters to the circuit courts in 1967, the legislature explicitly stated that the issuance of a delayed birth certificate was within the “exclusive and original judicial jurisdiction” of the circuit courts. ORS 3.260(2)(g). That statute also included mental commitment, domestic relations, and name change cases, all of which were traditionally cases in equity subject to our de novo review. In addition, because petitioner’s requested relief — a declaration of her son’s legal status — is not available at law, we conclude that the claim is equitable in nature. See G. I. Joe’s, Inc., 183 Or App at 122 (noting that a traditional legal remedy is relief in the form of a money judgment); Division of State Lands v. Norris, 182 Or App 547, 553, 50 P3d 595 (2002) (noting various forms of injunctive and declaratory relief that are equitable in nature); Capper v. Tarlow, 6 Or App 235, 236, 486 P2d 1298 (1971) (determining that remedy for a plaintiff seeking a money judgment against an estate is in law).
*114On de novo review, we examine the record independently. ORS 19.415(3) (2007). Initially, we note that the basis of the trial court’s decision is unclear. The record does not establish that the court accepted the proposition that it could decide the case solely on the basis of testimonial evidence. Although the court and the state registrar’s counsel discussed whether the statute allowed the court to issue a court-ordered birth certificate based solely on the hearing testimony, the court never stated its agreement with that legal proposition, and the court’s letter opinion does not establish the basis for the court’s conclusion.
The court’s letter opinion placed particular emphasis on petitioner’s failure to provide documentary evidence to corroborate her testimony, noting three times that “no documents were introduced in evidence corroborating that either [petitioner], father, or [son] were present in the state of Oregon” on the date son was born. Indeed, the court goes so far as to state that there was “simply no evidence in the record” to corroborate petitioner’s testimony, even though Hernandez’s testimony did provide such corroboration and the court did not address the credibility of that testimony. Although the court did not state directly that, as a matter of law, petitioner was required by ORS 432.142 to submit documentary evidence to corroborate the testimony, we are persuaded that the court’s conclusion, more likely than not, was based on the lack of documentary evidence, rather than on an implicit finding that petitioner’s testimony and the testimony of her corroborating witness were not credible. In light of that likely error by the trial court, we proceed to review the testimony de novo, rather than remanding for the trial court to do so in the first instance, especially in light of the need to bring finality to the question of child’s legal existence.
Based upon our review of the testimony recounted above, and the affidavits supplied to the state registrar under ORS 432.140, we conclude that petitioner satisfied her burden of establishing that her son was born in Oregon.
Reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment consistent with this opinion.

 Petitioner also submitted an affidavit from her own mother attesting to petitioner’s son’s birth in Oregon and an affidavit from her son’s father voluntarily-acknowledging paternity.

 The state registrar also asserts that petitioner failed to preserve her claim of error. We reject that argument without discussion.

 ORS 19.415 was amended in 2009. Or Laws 2009, ch 231, § 2. The amendments apply to appeals in which the notice of appeal was filed on or after June 4, 2009. Or Laws, ch 231, § 3. Because the notice of appeal in this case was filed before that date, we apply the 2007 version of ORS 19.415.