Marriage of Meier, Matter of

• Decision Date: 30 October 1978
• Docket Number: No. 400-061,400-061
• Citation: 36 Or.App. 685,585 P.2d 713
• Parties: In the Matter of the MARRIAGE OF Gary Max MEIER, Respondent, and Patricia Anne Meier, Appellant. ; C A 10498.
• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals

Page 713

585 P.2d 713

36 Or.App. 685

In the Matter of the MARRIAGE OF Gary Max MEIER, Respondent and Patricia Anne Meier, Appellant.

No. 400-061; C A 10498.

Court of Appeals of Oregon, In Banc.

Argued and Submitted July 20, 1978.

Resubmitted in banc Sept. 12, 1978.

Decided Oct. 30, 1978.

Constance C. Jarvis, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

Ira L. Gottlieb, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was William F. Schulte, Jr., Portland.

TANZER, Judge.

This is an appeal by the mother from an order modifying the award to her of custody of the minor child of the parties, Justin. The 1974 decree of dissolution incorporated that provision from the property settlement agreement:

"Wife shall not change her residence or that of the minor child from the greater Portland, Oregon, area without prior Order of the Court herein being first obtained upon proper prior notice to Husband."

The mother moved for an order permitting her to move with the child from Oregon to Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The father then moved for an order to change custody of Justin to him or, in the alternative, for an order prohibiting and restraining the mother from leaving this jurisdiction with the child. The trial court denied the mother's motion and granted the father's motion to change custody of Justin to father in the event that mother moves to Canada. The latter part of the order provides:

"The motions of the Petitioner, GARY MAX MEIER, are granted insofar as the minor child of the parties, JUSTIN, shall not be taken to Canada, and if the Respondent does move to Canada, then custody of the child shall change from the Respondent to the Petitioner. As long as the Respondent remains within the jurisdiction of this Court, she shall continue to have custody of the minor child of the parties until further order of the Court."

The mother is a Canadian citizen who has resided in the United States for about ten years. She has no close family members in the Portland area where the father lives. Her reasons for desiring to move are professional advancement and family ties. Justin, 7, has a close and loving relationship with both parents and either parent would be competent as a custodial parent.

The trial court found that it was not in the best below-interests of the child to permit the move to Canada because: (1) the child's excellent 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.

Upon review de novo, the issue is whether, as a matter of discretion, custody should be conditioned upon a requirement that the mother not move to Canada with the child. The underlying issue is whether the domestic relations court may, by the imposition of conditions upon an award of custody, make parental decisions which would otherwise be made by the custodial parent.

The context in which the issue is presented is so interlaced with competing personal and social considerations the social and economic dynamics of a mobile society, the increasing numbers of mothers who choose to or must pursue careers, the desirability of maintaining the intrinsically incomplete relationships between children and noncustodial parents and the harshness of attenuating those relationships that no sensitive judge can conclude with confident conviction that any decision is altogether good. In such a situation, absent exceptional circumstances, it is better for people to make their own decisions according to the authority the law has reposed in them than for the courts to intervene into their lives to make their decisions for them.

Were we writing on a clean slate, we could logically hold that the court is authorized by ORS 107.105 to award custody to a parent; that custody includes authority to make parental decisions such as choice of residence; that there is no authority for the court to substitute its parental judgment in the form of conditions imposed upon custody; and that the court, after making an award, should get out of the litigants' lives unless continuation of the status quo would be injurious to the child and custody must be modified to avoid the injury, in which case ORS 107.135 authorizes change of custody.

The placement of a condition upon custody is a supervisory act In loco parentis rather than an adjudicative act. Ordinarily, the court may not assume parental decision-making authority unless, under ORS 419.476, the court assumes the Parens patriae function and makes the child a ward of the court due to misbehavior, neglect or need. Otherwise, the court is not statutorily authorized to intervene and the child remains a ward of the custodial parent.

The slate, however, is not entirely clean; but neither is it entirely filled. The Supreme Court has held as an assumption rather than a reasoned conclusion in Perley v. Perley, 220 Or. 399, 349 P.2d 663 (1960), that a motion to modify an award of custody which restricts the custodial parent's freedom to move from the jurisdiction is addressed to the court's discretion. The principles by which that discretion is to be applied, however, have not been defined other than by formulary invocation of the phrase "best interests of the child." That rubric is not helpful, however, because any chancellor could justify any result under it. The judicial task of this case is to give legal form and substance to the chancellor's discretion which the Supreme Court has held to exist.

To begin with, it is noteworthy that by virtue of ORS 107.135 which authorizes modification, every award of custody contains an implicit condition that custody may be changed if circumstances change. The double effect of and express condition is to authorize the court to modify for lesser changed circumstances, See Perley v. Perley, and to anticipate such change.

First, because the former effect, easy modification, is in derogation of the change-of-circumstances rule of ORS 107.135, discretion to impose or enforce such conditions should be exercised with restraint; particularly, judicial discretion should not be exercised to regulate decisions such as choice of residence which are normally parental, not judicial, decisions unless due to exceptional circumstances there is a clear danger to the child's well-being. Second, such a discretionary condition should be imposed only where there are reasons of danger, demonstrable bad faith or impracticality which make it desirable that the situation be anticipated abstractly rather than dealt with on the facts after occurrence. Third,...