6 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 2020–2026 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Davison and Schafergreen2 sentences2022Bowermaster, The Relocation of Children and Custodial Parents: Public Policy, Past and Present, 30 Fam L Q 245 (1996)).” 380 Stancliff and Stancliff in the best-interest analysis of what parenting plan best served the children’s interest. 308 Or App 513, 519 , 479 P3d 1108 (2021). 2022Bowermaster, The Relocation of Children and Custodial Parents: Public Policy, Past and Present, 30 Fam L Q 245 (1996)).” 380 Stancliff and Stancliff in the best-interest analysis of what parenting plan best served the children’s interest. 308 Or App 513, 519 , 479 P3d 1108 (2021). | 1 | 2 |
Dept. of Human Services v. M. H.green1 sentence2025H., 306 Or App at 161 (explaining that under ORS 419B.498(1)(a), “identifying and approving an adoptive placement is not to occur only after a parent’s rights are terminated, * * * but rather is to occur simultaneously with the petition to terminate[, and] [t]hat required simultane- ous effort suggests that the identified adoptive placement is relevant to the best-interest inquiry in a termination proceeding”). | 1 | 1 |
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. L. M. H. (In re B. J. M.)green1 sentence2020H., 294 Or App at 752 (discussing, as part of the best-interest analysis, whether the child’s potential adoptive placement would be willing to facilitate an ongoing relation- ship with the child’s mother, to whom the child was bonded, if her rights were terminated); Dept. of Human Services v. T. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pickard v. Bland
neutral
1 sentence2026On appeal, father focuses on the best-interest issue, arguing that it was contrary to S’s best interests to remain in mother’s legal custody and that the court failed to Nonprecedential Memo Op: 347 Or App 864 (2026) 867 properly consider the best-interest factors in ORS 107.137. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. T. J. L.
green
1 sentence2025In making any disposition, Cite as 337 Or App 600 (2025) 603 ORS 419C.411 requires the juvenile court to consider five factors, allows it to consider six additional factors, and further allows it to consider any other relevant factors or circumstances raised by the parties. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.