Court Opinion

ID: 9793592
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:50:21.446679+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:12.216183
License: Public Domain

THORNTON, J.,
dissenting.
I find myself in total disagreement with the majority opinion and the new child custody rules announced therein.
First, the majority opinion is based on a false premise. It states:
"* * * [T]he issue is whether, as a matter of [judicial] discretion, custody should be conditioned upon a requirement that the mother not move to Canada with the child. He Hi
This ignores the fact that here the parties specifically agreed in writing after they separated and before suit that the wife would not change the residence of the minor child "without prior Order of the Court.” The court in placing this restriction in the 1974 decree was simply approving the terms the parents had already agreed to between themselves. Thus, the restriction on moving the child, which the majority inveighs against *692and strikes down, came into being not by "judicial second-guessing,” as the majority characterizes it, but by express agreement of the parties.
My second and greatest objection to the majority’s decision is directed to the result, namely, the adverse effect on this 7-year-old boy of summarily uprooting him from his home, school and friends in Oregon and transplanting him to Canada. I am convinced by the evidence presented in this case that the majority’s decision is contrary to the best interests of this child. Further, I am greatly concerned over the emotional shock this drastic move is going to have on this young boy.
The trial court found that it was not in the best interests of the child to permit the move to Canada. The court based its ruling on two things: (1) that the child’s close relationship with his father would be disrupted and could not be replaced by the mother’s family in Canada; and (2) the move would cause a general upheaval in the boy’s life. The court also expressed concern about the problem of enforcing the father’s visitation rights.
My reading of this record convinces me that the trial judge was right in his conclusions.
The record reflects that Justin and his father have an exceptionally warm and loving relationship. The mother, apparently with the support of her family, has on more than one occasion in the past impeded and interfered with the father’s visitation rights. I fear that the effect of the majority’s decision today, which is essentially substituting the presence of the mother’s family in Canada for the father’s, will be to write "finis” to the close relationship between Justin and his father for all practical purposes. True, the majority would provide that Justin will spend each July with his father and one week each year in alternate years during Christmas or spring vacation. But if the mother and her parents choose to obstruct the father’s visitation rights, as they have done in the past, the *693father may well encounter great difficulties in trying to enforce these rights in the courts of a foreign country, not to mention the sizeable legal expense he will be put to. Further, despite these efforts the father may still ultimately be unable to persuade the foreign court to enforce even the limited visitation rights granted him by this court.
Giving due weight to the opinion of the experienced trial judge who saw and heard the parents and their witnesses firsthand, Rea v. Rea, 195 Or 252, 261, 245 P2d 884, 35 ALR2d 612 (1952), I conclude that the interests of this child would be far better served by maintaining the status quo, as anticipated by both parents at the time of the original decree, under which he can have the benefit of the care, nurture and parental companionship and love of both parents. Liberal contact with both parents is essential to Justin’s development. As I have already indicated, I feel that taking his father out of the picture after his having helped raise and care for him all these years is apt to have a very serious, traumatic effect on this young boy, and may well be productive of irreparable long-range damage to this child.
For the above reasons I respectfully dissent.
Lee and Buttler, JJ., join in this dissent.