Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.101 (2026)

Policy regarding parenting

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

107.101 Policy regarding parenting. It is the policy of this state to:

(1) Assure minor children of frequent and continuing contact with parents who have shown the ability to act in the best interests of the child;

(2) Encourage such parents to share in the rights and responsibilities of raising their children after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage;

(3) Encourage parents to develop their own parenting plan with the assistance of legal and mediation professionals, if necessary;

(4) Grant parents and courts the widest discretion in developing a parenting plan; and

(5) Consider the best interests of the child and the safety of the parties in developing a parenting plan. [1997 c.707 §1]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 21 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 2005–2026 · leading case: Sjomeling v. Lasser, 285 P.3d 1116 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sjomeling v. Lasser, 285 P.3d 1116 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “Further, Oregon has a public policy preference to “[a]ssure minor children of frequent and continuing contact with parents who have'shown the ability to act in the best interests of the child,” ORS 107.101(1), and to “[e]ncourage such parents to share in the rights and…”

In re the Marriage of Murray, 403 P.3d 473 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “” ORS 107.101. Under father’s proposed parenting plan, “[d]uring the school year, the child would be with father during the school week, and with mother every weekend with a Monday morning return” and “[t]he inequality of time during the school year would be ‘made up’ during the…”

Cole v. Wyatt, 116 P.3d 919 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “Although ORS 107.101 8 and ORS 107.105(l)(b) require the court to recognize the value of parental contact, the child’s welfare must be accorded greater weight.”

In re the Marriage of Cooksey, 125 P.3d 57 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “According to father, under ORS 107.101 and ORS 107.102, the ability of a parent to relocate is an aspect of a parenting plan, the standard for which is the best interests of the child.”

Gilbride v. Smith, 537 P.3d 961 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “” It is also reflected in the Oregon public policy directive to “[g]rant parents and courts the widest discretion in devel- oping a parenting plan,” ORS 107.101(4), and, in doing so, to “[c]onsider the best interests of the child and the safety of the parties,” ORS 107.”

In Re the Marriage of Maurer, 262 P.3d 1175 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 3× “Further, we are mindful of Oregon’s public policy preference to “[a]ssure minor children of frequent and continuing contact with parents who have shown the ability to act in the best *629 interests of the child,” ORS 107.”

In Re the Marriage of Herinckx, 218 P.3d 137 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “” ORS 107.101(1); see also ORS 107.149 (same).”

T. S. R. v. J. B. C., 308 P.3d 244 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “at 8 (citing ORS 107.101 and ORS 107.149). In addition to presenting evidence that he had completed parenting classes and that his narcissistic personality disorder was “in remission,” father presented testimony from friends and family members that father was currently a…”

Dept. of Human Servs. v. Z. M., 504 P.3d 1208 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “Cite as 316 Or App 327 (2021) 337 custody and parenting time decision” sufficient to overcome DHS’s burden of showing that appellate decision would have no practical effect on the parties’ rights); ORS 107.101(1) (providing that one of the policies in approving a parenting plan…”

Wintle v. Martin, 562 P.3d 1148 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “” Father responds that the clause “provides a commonsense approach to the cooperation and involvement the parenting time agreement embraces.”

Wintle v. Martin, 337 Or. App. 343 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “” Father responds that the clause “provides a commonsense approach to the cooperation and involvement the parenting time agreement embraces.”

Sause & Schnitzer (Or. 2023). · cites it 4× “258, quoted above, which creates a disputable presump- tion of paternity based on blood tests; and ORS 107.101(1), which establishes Oregon’s policy to “[a]ssure minor chil- dren of frequent and continuing contact with parents who have shown the ability to act in the best…”

Show all 21 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.101(1) — 10 cases

Sjomeling v. Lasser, 285 P.3d 1116 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “Further, Oregon has a public policy preference to “[a]ssure minor children of frequent and continuing contact with parents who have'shown the ability to act in the best interests of the child,” ORS 107.101(1), and to “[e]ncourage such parents to share in the rights and…”

In re the Marriage of Murray, 403 P.3d 473 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “” ORS 107.101. Under father’s proposed parenting plan, “[d]uring the school year, the child would be with father during the school week, and with mother every weekend with a Monday morning return” and “[t]he inequality of time during the school year would be ‘made up’ during the…”

In Re the Marriage of Maurer, 262 P.3d 1175 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “Further, we are mindful of Oregon’s public policy preference to “[a]ssure minor children of frequent and continuing contact with parents who have shown the ability to act in the best *629 interests of the child,” ORS 107.”

In Re the Marriage of Herinckx, 218 P.3d 137 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “” ORS 107.101(1); see also ORS 107.149 (same).”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.101(2) — 2 cases

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.101(3) — 1 case

In re the Marriage of Pierce, 313 P.3d 338 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.101(4) — 6 cases

Gilbride v. Smith, 537 P.3d 961 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “” It is also reflected in the Oregon public policy directive to “[g]rant parents and courts the widest discretion in devel- oping a parenting plan,” ORS 107.101(4), and, in doing so, to “[c]onsider the best interests of the child and the safety of the parties,” ORS 107.”

Gilbride v. Smith (Or. Ct. App. 2023).

Harrison v. Joseph B. Mazza, LLC, 554 P.3d 258 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.101(5) — 4 cases

In re the Marriage of Cooksey, 125 P.3d 57 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “According to father, under ORS 107.101 and ORS 107.102, the ability of a parent to relocate is an aspect of a parenting plan, the standard for which is the best interests of the child.”

Gilbride v. Smith (Or. Ct. App. 2023).

In re the Custody of M. T., 284 P.3d 1214 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.