Warren and Warren

324 Or. App. 111

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: February 1, 2023
• Docket: A176233
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1). Argued and submitted December 23, 2022, affirmed February 1, 2023

In the Matter of the Marriage of Sara Nichole WARREN, aka Sara Warren, Petitioner-Appellant, and Robert Lee WARREN, aka Robert L. Warren, Respondent-Respondent. Lane County Circuit Court 151216872; A176233

Bradley A. Cascagnette, Judge. Michael Vergamini argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant. No appearance by respondent. Before Egan, Presiding Judge, and Kamins, Judge, and Hadlock, Judge pro tempore. HADLOCK, J. pro tempore. Affirmed. 112 Warren and Warren

HADLOCK, J. pro tempore Mother appeals a supplemental judgment changing custody of the child, K, from mother to father. On appeal, mother argues that the trial court erred by (1) applying an incorrect legal standard when it made its change-of-custody determination; (2) determining that the facts were sufficient to justify a change of custody; (3) failing to make sufficient best-interest findings to justify a change of custody; and (4) failing to make best-interest findings when it modified the parenting-time schedule. Having reviewed the entirety of the record and mother’s arguments on appeal, we affirm the supplemental judgment. The trial court applied the correct legal standard when deciding whether to change custody from mother to father. See generally Botofan-Miller and Miller, 365 Or 504, 446 P3d 1280 (2019), cert den, 141 S Ct 134 (2020) (discussing when changed circumstances can justify a change in cus- tody). Moreover, evidence in the record supports the court’s factual findings about the child’s condition and living cir- cumstances and its ultimate determination that a change of circumstances had occurred that justified a change in cus- tody. We therefore reject mother’s first and second assign- ments of error. We reject mother’s third and fourth assignments of error as unpreserved and, with respect to the fourth assign- ment, as not meriting plain-error review. See Botofan-Miller, 365 Or at 525 (rejecting a similar argument about lack of findings because it was not preserved for appeal). Affirmed.