Court Opinion

ID: 9625584
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:45:14.12417+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:11.354276
License: Public Domain

SCHWAB, C. J.,
dissenting.
The majority’s disposition of this case is not completely clear to me. What is clear to me is that the disposition should be deference to the substantially superior claim to jurisdiction of the Washington court.
The father and child are and were at all material *683times residents of the state of Washington. The mother submitted to the jurisdiction of the Washington court to adjudicate the question of the child’s custody. The only basis for subsequently presenting the same custody question to an Oregon court is that the mother, in flagrant violation of the order of the Washington court, has removed the child from that jurisdiction.
Under the standards established in Hawkins v. Hawkins, 264 Or 221, 504 P2d 709 (1972), and previously applied by us in Gatchell v. Rice, 16 Or App 22, 517 P2d 1198 (1974), I think that further proceedings relative to the child’s custody should take place in Washington. Moreover, I think the record we already have is sufficient to make that determination, and realistically I doubt that anything relevant can be added at the hearing on remand contemplated by the majority.
I respectfully dissent.