Background
Sean and Brittany Barton’s marriage was dissolved through a stipulated judgment granting them joint custody of their minor children. Father later moved to modify aspects of that judgment, including the child-support award, and mother counterclaimed for sole custody.
The circuit court determined that neither parent was entitled to the statutory primary-caregiver preference, weighed that factor equally between them, and awarded father sole custody. The supplemental judgment also awarded mother child support. Mother appealed the custody determination and challenged the calculation of child support, arguing that the court should have deducted certain automobile and home-office expenses from her income and included certain claimed childcare expenses.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals vacated the custody determination and remanded for reconsideration. Under ORS 107.137(1)(e), the trial court was required to designate one parent as the primary caregiver and, if that parent was fit, give that parent a preference in the custody analysis. The trial court applied the wrong legal standard by designating neither parent, and the error was not harmless.
The court otherwise affirmed, including the child-support award to mother. It concluded that the trial court could decline to exclude mixed personal-and-business automobile and home-office expenses when determining mother’s gross income. It also upheld the finding that mother’s claimed childcare expenses were not work-related childcare costs. The court noted that it was affirming child support on the record existing when the trial court ruled and did not decide how any custody change on remand might affect a future support award.
Key Takeaways
- In applying ORS 107.137, a court may not designate neither parent—or both parents—as the primary caregiver; it must select one and apply the statutory preference if that parent is fit.
- A custody decision based on the wrong substantive standard is an abuse of discretion, and the failure to identify a primary caregiver required reconsideration here.
- The child-support award to mother remained intact because the Court of Appeals found no reversible error in the treatment of her mixed-use expenses or claimed childcare costs.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Oregon trial courts must expressly identify one primary caregiver when evaluating custody under ORS 107.137 rather than treating the factor as neutral between the parents. It also illustrates the deference afforded to trial-court findings about whether claimed expenses are proper business deductions or qualifying work-related childcare costs.
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as permitted by ORAP 10.30(1).