Oregon Revised Statutes
Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.415 (2026)
Notice of change of status of child; effect of failure to give notice
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
ORSoregonlegislature.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
107.415 Notice of change of status of child; effect of failure to give notice. (1) If a party is required by a judgment of a court in a domestic relations suit, as defined in ORS 107.510, to contribute to the support, nurture or education of a minor child while the other party has custody thereof, the custodial parent shall notify the party contributing such money when the minor child receives income from the gainful employment of the child, or is married or enters the military service.
(2) Any custodial parent who does not provide notice, as required by subsection (1) of this section may be required by the court to make restitution to the contributing party of any money paid, as required by the judgment. The court may enter a supplemental judgment or satisfy all or part of the support award to accomplish the restitution. [1971 c.314 §1; 2003 c.576 §120]
107.420 [1961 c.340 §1; repealed by 1971 c.280 §28]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1977–2000 · leading case: Ellis v. Ellis, 640 P.2d 1024 (Or. 1982).
Ellis v. Ellis, 640 P.2d 1024 (Or. 1982). “If the mother in this case had elected to have an execution issued on the unpaid installments of child support that had been docketed as a judgment, how could the father defend? In 1971 the Oregon legislature enacted ORS 107.415, which provides: "(1) If a party is required by a…”
In re the Marriage of Eagen, 628 P.2d 428 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). “The mother apparently also sees some relevance in ORS 107.415, 3 which she insists was enacted to reinstate the power of the domestic relations court to modify an accrued support judgment in very specific and limited circumstances only.”
Redler & Redler, 996 P.2d 963 (Or. 2000). “” Father then argued that, under ORS 107.415, 4 he was entitled to credit against his support arrearage because his daughters had received income from their gainful employment.”
Matter of Marriage of Eusterman, 598 P.2d 1274 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). “order? If the noncustodial parent is aware the child is not attending school, can he or she unilaterally stop making support payments? If the noncustodial parent was unaware the child was not attending school and thus continued making support payments, can the noncustodial…”
In re the Marriage of Wiebe, 833 P.2d 333 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “108 or ORS 107.415. However, payments made for college expenses shall be considered a credit against the monthly support obligation due the child.”
In re the Marriage of Cupp, 560 P.2d 291 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). “The intent of the legislature that custodial parents not gain irreversible advantage over parents paying support by concealing a change of circumstances which could terminate the duty to pay is disclosed by ORS 107.415, which reads: "(1) If a party is required by a decree of a…”
In re the Marriage of Alspaugh, 605 P.2d 1386 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “The trial court issued an order requiring the father to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failure to pay the child support.”
State of Oregon Dep't of Human Resources v. Redler, 956 P.2d 232 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “” He bases his contentions on ORS 107.415 and ORS 25.280. The former statute, he argues, authorizes him “to move for a reduction in child support” in circumstances such as those in this case, in which the children have become self-supporting.”
In re the Marriage of Bohm, 566 P.2d 200 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). “The court held this fact was not reported to the husband and he *53 was therefore entitled to an offset of that amount against the arrearage pursuant to ORS 107.415. This statute provides that a custodial parent shall notify the other parent contributing child support of income…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.415(2) — 2 cases
Redler & Redler, 996 P.2d 963 (Or. 2000). “” Father then argued that, under ORS 107.415, 4 he was entitled to credit against his support arrearage because his daughters had received income from their gainful employment.”
State of Oregon Dep't of Human Resources v. Redler, 956 P.2d 232 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “” He bases his contentions on ORS 107.415 and ORS 25.280. The former statute, he argues, authorizes him “to move for a reduction in child support” in circumstances such as those in this case, in which the children have become self-supporting.”
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.