Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.106 (2026)

Provisions of order or judgment providing for custody, parenting time, visitation or support of child

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      107.106 Provisions of order or judgment providing for custody, parenting time, visitation or support of child. (1) An order or judgment providing for the custody, parenting time, visitation or support of a child under ORS chapter 25, 107, 108, 109 or 110 or ORS 419B.400 shall include:

      (a) Provisions addressing the issues of:

      (A) Payment of uninsured medical expenses of the child;

      (B) Maintenance of insurance or other security for support; and

      (C) Medical support for the child under ORS 25.321 to 25.343.

      (b) A statement in substantially the following form:

______________________________________________________________________________

     

The terms of child support and parenting time (visitation) are designed for the child’s benefit and not the parents’ benefit. You must pay support even if you are not receiving visitation. You must comply with visitation orders even if you are not receiving child support.

      Violation of child support orders and visitation orders is punishable by fine, imprisonment or other penalties.

      Publicly funded help is available to establish, enforce and modify child support orders. Parentage establishment services are also available. Contact your local district attorney or the Department of Justice at (503) 373-7300 for information.

      Publicly funded help may be available to establish, enforce and modify visitation orders. Forms are available to enforce visitation orders. Contact the domestic relations court clerk or civil court clerk for information.

______________________________________________________________________________

      (2) The court or administrative law judge shall ensure the creation and filing of an order or judgment that complies with this section.

      (3) This section does not apply to an action undertaken by the Division of Child Support of the Department of Justice or a district attorney under ORS 25.080. [1995 c.800 §9; 1997 c.249 §36; 1997 c.707 §8; 2003 c.73 §49a; 2003 c.75 §83; 2003 c.637 §17; 2009 c.351 §8; 2021 c.597 §58; 2025 c.592 §113]

 

      107.107 [1981 c.775 §4; repealed by 1983 c.728 §9]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1991–2024 · leading case: Klemp v. Andrach, 335 Or. App. 187 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
Klemp v. Andrach, 335 Or. App. 187 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 7× “And when a judgment creates an obligation of child support, “[i]f the party ordered to pay support * * * has no life insur- ance policy naming as beneficiary the party ordered to receive * * * support * * * or if an existing policy is inade- quate to cover the obligation, the…”
Garcia-Ascencio v. Gonzalez, 517 P.3d 332 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “” ORS 107.106(1)(b). IV. PRESERVATION Preliminarily, we review whether mother preserved her argument that the record did not support a deviation from the presumed child support obligation under the guidelines-based calculation.”
In re the Marriage of Matar, 300 P.3d 144 (Or. 2013). “ORS 107.106(b) recognizes that those awards “are designed for the child’s benefit and not the parents’ benefit” and requires that judgments entered in such proceedings include a statement so informing parents.”
In Re Lutzke, 223 B.R. 552 (Bankr. D. Or. 1998). “See also, ORS 107.106(1)(b) which, when this case was filed, required that support orders be accompanied by the following statement: “Oregon law recognizes that child support and visitation terms are designed for the child’s benefit.”
Matter of Marriage of Willey, 963 P.2d 141 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “However, ORS 107.106 requires a judgment providing for custody to include “[mjaintenance of insurance or other security for support[.”
Di Iorio v. Di Iorio, 603 A.2d 127 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1991). “Beyond that, she had a claim under ORS 107.106(l)(e) (1979) to an equitable apportionment of the “real or personal property, or both, of either or both of parties.”
Klemp v. Andrach (Or. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 7× “And when a judgment creates an obligation of child support, “[i]f the party ordered to pay support * * * has no life insur- ance policy naming as beneficiary the party ordered to receive * * * support * * * or if an existing policy is inade- quate to cover the obligation, the…”
Klemp v. Andrach (Or. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 7× “And when a judgment creates an obligation of child support, “[i]f the party ordered to pay support * * * has no life insur- ance policy naming as beneficiary the party ordered to receive * * * support * * * or if an existing policy is inade- quate to cover the obligation, the…”
Matar & Harake (Or. 2013). “ORS 107.106(b) recognizes that those awards “are designed for the child’s benefit and not the parents’ benefit” and requires that judgments entered in such proceedings include a statement so informing parents.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.106(1) — 1 case
Klemp v. Andrach (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “And when a judgment creates an obligation of child support, “[i]f the party ordered to pay support * * * has no life insur- ance policy naming as beneficiary the party ordered to receive * * * support * * * or if an existing policy is inade- quate to cover the obligation, the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.106(1)(a) — 1 case
Klemp v. Andrach (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “And when a judgment creates an obligation of child support, “[i]f the party ordered to pay support * * * has no life insur- ance policy naming as beneficiary the party ordered to receive * * * support * * * or if an existing policy is inade- quate to cover the obligation, the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.106(1)(a)(B) — 3 cases
Klemp v. Andrach, 335 Or. App. 187 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “And when a judgment creates an obligation of child support, “[i]f the party ordered to pay support * * * has no life insur- ance policy naming as beneficiary the party ordered to receive * * * support * * * or if an existing policy is inade- quate to cover the obligation, the…”
Klemp v. Andrach (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “And when a judgment creates an obligation of child support, “[i]f the party ordered to pay support * * * has no life insur- ance policy naming as beneficiary the party ordered to receive * * * support * * * or if an existing policy is inade- quate to cover the obligation, the…”
Klemp v. Andrach (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “And when a judgment creates an obligation of child support, “[i]f the party ordered to pay support * * * has no life insur- ance policy naming as beneficiary the party ordered to receive * * * support * * * or if an existing policy is inade- quate to cover the obligation, the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.106(1)(b) — 2 cases
Garcia-Ascencio v. Gonzalez, 517 P.3d 332 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “” ORS 107.106(1)(b). IV. PRESERVATION Preliminarily, we review whether mother preserved her argument that the record did not support a deviation from the presumed child support obligation under the guidelines-based calculation.”
In Re Lutzke, 223 B.R. 552 (Bankr. D. Or. 1998). “See also, ORS 107.106(1)(b) which, when this case was filed, required that support orders be accompanied by the following statement: “Oregon law recognizes that child support and visitation terms are designed for the child’s benefit.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.106(b) — 2 cases
In re the Marriage of Matar, 300 P.3d 144 (Or. 2013). “ORS 107.106(b) recognizes that those awards “are designed for the child’s benefit and not the parents’ benefit” and requires that judgments entered in such proceedings include a statement so informing parents.”
Matar & Harake (Or. 2013). “ORS 107.106(b) recognizes that those awards “are designed for the child’s benefit and not the parents’ benefit” and requires that judgments entered in such proceedings include a statement so informing parents.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.106(l)(e) — 1 case
Di Iorio v. Di Iorio, 603 A.2d 127 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1991). “Beyond that, she had a claim under ORS 107.106(l)(e) (1979) to an equitable apportionment of the “real or personal property, or both, of either or both of parties.”
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.