Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.169 (2026)

Joint custody of child; modification

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

      107.169 Joint custody of child; modification. (1) As used in this chapter, “joint custody” means an arrangement by which parents share rights and responsibilities for major decisions concerning the child, including, but not limited to, the child’s residence, education, health care and religious training. An order providing for joint custody may specify one home as the primary residence of the child and designate one parent to have sole power to make decisions about specific matters while both parents retain equal rights and responsibilities for other decisions.

      (2) The existence of an order of joint custody shall not, by itself, determine the responsibility of each parent to provide for the support of the child.

      (3) The court shall not order joint custody, unless both parents agree to the terms and conditions of the order.

      (4) When parents have agreed to joint custody in an order or a judgment, the court may not overrule that agreement by ordering sole custody to one parent.

      (5) Modification of a joint custody order shall require showing of changed circumstances and a showing that the modification is in the best interests of the child such as would support modification of a sole custody order. Inability or unwillingness to continue to cooperate shall constitute a change of circumstances sufficient to modify a joint custody order.

      (6)(a) The inability of a parent to comply with the terms and conditions of a joint custody order due to the parent’s temporary absence does not constitute a change of circumstances if the parent’s temporary absence is caused by the parent being:

      (A) Called into state active duty as defined in the Oregon Code of Military Justice; or

      (B) Called into active federal service under Title 10 of the United States Code as a member of the Oregon National Guard.

      (b) As used in this subsection, “temporary absence” means a period not exceeding 30 consecutive months. [1987 c.795 §6; 2003 c.576 §114; 2005 c.79 §3; 2013 c.81 §21]

 

      107.170 [1955 c.648 §1; repealed by 1961 c.210 §6]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: In Re the Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683 (Iowa 2007).
In Re the Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683 (Iowa 2007). “Cherlin, Divided Families: What Happens to Children When Parents Part 75-76 (1991); see Or.Rev.Stat. § 107.169(3) (2007) (joint custody only upon agreement of parents); Vt.”
Patterson v. Taylor, 535 S.E.2d 374 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “1 (Michie 1999); Or.Rev.Stat. § 107.169 (1999). In contrast, North Carolina's governing statute refers to "joint custody" but contains neither a definition of the term nor a distinction between "joint legal custody" and "joint physical custody.”
State Ex Rel Johnson v. Bail, 938 P.2d 209 (Or. 1997). “”); ORS 107.169(5) (joint custody order may be modified on showing of changed circumstances and “showing that the modification is in the best interests of the child”); ORS 109.”
In the Matter of Marriage of Sigler & Sigler, 889 P.2d 1323 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). “ORS 107.169(3) provides: “The court shall not order joint custody, unless both parents agree to the terms and conditions of the order.”
In Re the Marriage of Duckett, 905 P.2d 1170 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). “…the child, including, but not limited to, the child’s residence, education, health care and religious training.” ORS 107.169(1).”
In re the Marriage of Dagan, 798 P.2d 253 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “2 Alternatively, if we were to treat father’s motion as a motion to amend the dissolution judgment to incorporate the custody provisions of the foreign judgment, father failed to comply with the procedural requirements.”
Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 801 S.W.2d 80 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990). “ORS 107.169(5) provides: Modification of a joint custody order shall require showing of changed circumstances and a showing that the modification is in the best interests of the child such as would support modification of a sole custody order.”
In re the Marriage of Swilling, 775 P.2d 929 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). “ORS 107.169(5) provides: “Modification of a joint custody order shall require showing of changed circumstances and a showing that the modification is in the best interests of the child such as would support modification of a sole custody order.”
In re the Marriage of Horner, 849 P.2d 560 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). “A change of circumstances occurs as a matter of law for purposes of a modification of a joint custody arrangement when there is an inability or unwillingness to continue to cooperate in that arrangement and one of the parties believes that arrangement is unworkable.”
Matter of Marriage of Stevens, 229 P.3d 625 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “Ladendorff and Ladendorff, 217 Or App 62, 67 , 174 P3d 1047 (2007); see also ORS 107.169(5) (“Modification of a joint custody order shall require showing of changed circumstances and a showing that the modification is in the best interests of the child such as would support…”
Fial (D. Or. 2025). · cites it 12× “” ORS 107.169(1). Challenged here is ORS 107.”
In re the Marriage of Garrett, 152 P.3d 993 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “As to the son, ORS 107.169(5) provides that the “[inability or unwillingness to continue to cooperate [in a joint custody arrangement] shall constitute a change of circumstances sufficient to modify a joint custody award.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.169(1) — 3 cases
In Re the Marriage of Duckett, 905 P.2d 1170 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). “…the child, including, but not limited to, the child’s residence, education, health care and religious training.” ORS 107.169(1).”
K.S. v. J.S., 2024 NY Slip Op 51418(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Putnam Cty. 2024).
Fial (D. Or. 2025). “” ORS 107.169(1). Challenged here is ORS 107.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.169(3) — 9 cases
In Re the Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683 (Iowa 2007). “Cherlin, Divided Families: What Happens to Children When Parents Part 75-76 (1991); see Or.Rev.Stat. § 107.169(3) (2007) (joint custody only upon agreement of parents); Vt.”
In the Matter of Marriage of Sigler & Sigler, 889 P.2d 1323 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). “ORS 107.169(3) provides: “The court shall not order joint custody, unless both parents agree to the terms and conditions of the order.”
Fial (D. Or. 2025). “” ORS 107.169(1). Challenged here is ORS 107.”
Fial v. State of Oregon (D. Or. 2025).
In re Marriage of Milburn, 780 P.2d 775 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.169(5) — 12 cases
State Ex Rel Johnson v. Bail, 938 P.2d 209 (Or. 1997). “”); ORS 107.169(5) (joint custody order may be modified on showing of changed circumstances and “showing that the modification is in the best interests of the child”); ORS 109.”
In re the Marriage of Dagan, 798 P.2d 253 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “2 Alternatively, if we were to treat father’s motion as a motion to amend the dissolution judgment to incorporate the custody provisions of the foreign judgment, father failed to comply with the procedural requirements.”
Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 801 S.W.2d 80 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990). “ORS 107.169(5) provides: Modification of a joint custody order shall require showing of changed circumstances and a showing that the modification is in the best interests of the child such as would support modification of a sole custody order.”
In re the Marriage of Swilling, 775 P.2d 929 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). “ORS 107.169(5) provides: “Modification of a joint custody order shall require showing of changed circumstances and a showing that the modification is in the best interests of the child such as would support modification of a sole custody order.”
In re the Marriage of Horner, 849 P.2d 560 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). “A change of circumstances occurs as a matter of law for purposes of a modification of a joint custody arrangement when there is an inability or unwillingness to continue to cooperate in that arrangement and one of the parties believes that arrangement is unworkable.”
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.