Schroeder v. White

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Schroeder v. White

500 P.3d 771, 316 Or. App. 109

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 1, 2021

DocketA173578

StatusPublished

This text of 500 P.3d 771 (Schroeder v. White) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schroeder v. White, 500 P.3d 771, 316 Or. App. 109 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

Submitted October 28, affirmed December 1, 2021

Brice SCHROEDER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Rebecca WHITE, Respondent-Respondent. Linn County Circuit Court 15DR11164; A173578 500 P3d 771

Thomas McHill, Judge. Mark T. McLeod and McLeod & McLeod Attorneys at Law filed the brief for appellant. George W. Kelly filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and Kamins, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. 110 Schroeder v. White

PER CURIAM Father appeals an order modifying the parties’ joint custody arrangement and awarding custody of the parties’ three children to mother after determining that it was in their best interest that mother have custody. He argues that we should review the evidence de novo and award custody to him: “This Court’s exercise of de novo review is important to the custody ruling of the trial court because a proper weigh- ing of the substantial evidence will likely justify reversing or modifying the trial court’s ruling.” We decline that request. ORS 19.415(3)(b); ORAP 5.40(8)(c). We therefore review the court’s best-interest determination for abuse of discretion. Campbell v. Tardio, 261 Or App 78, 83, 323 P3d 317 (2014). Having considered the trial court’s evaluation of the ORS 107.137 factors on the record presented to it, including its express credibility findings, we see no abuse of discretion. Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Submitted October 28, affirmed December 1, 2021

Brice SCHROEDER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Rebecca WHITE, Respondent-Respondent. Linn County Circuit Court 15DR11164; A173578 500 P3d 771

Thomas McHill, Judge. Mark T. McLeod and McLeod & McLeod Attorneys at Law filed the brief for appellant. George W. Kelly filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and Kamins, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. 110 Schroeder v. White

PER CURIAM Father appeals an order modifying the parties’ joint custody arrangement and awarding custody of the parties’ three children to mother after determining that it was in their best interest that mother have custody. He argues that we should review the evidence de novo and award custody to him: “This Court’s exercise of de novo review is important to the custody ruling of the trial court because a proper weigh- ing of the substantial evidence will likely justify reversing or modifying the trial court’s ruling.” We decline that request. ORS 19.415(3)(b); ORAP 5.40(8)(c). We therefore review the court’s best-interest determination for abuse of discretion. Campbell v. Tardio, 261 Or App 78, 83, 323 P3d 317 (2014). Having considered the trial court’s evaluation of the ORS 107.137 factors on the record presented to it, including its express credibility findings, we see no abuse of discretion. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

500 P.3d 771, 316 Or. App. 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schroeder-v-white-orctapp-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack