107.434
Expedited parenting time enforcement procedure; remedies. (1) The presiding judge of each
judicial district shall establish an expedited parenting time enforcement
procedure that may or may not include a requirement for mediation or
participation in an alternative dispute resolution conference under ORS 107.103.
The procedure must be easy to understand and initiate. Unless the parties
otherwise agree or an alternative dispute resolution conference under ORS
107.103 is scheduled, the court shall conduct a hearing no later than 45 days
after the filing of a motion seeking enforcement of a parenting time order. The
court shall provide forms for:
(a) A motion
filed by either party alleging a violation of parenting time or substantial
violations of the parenting plan. When a person files this form, the person
must include a copy of the order establishing the parenting time.
(b) An order
requiring the parties to appear and show cause why parenting time should not be
enforced in a specified manner. The party filing the motion shall serve a copy
of the motion and the order on the other party in the manner provided by law
for service of a summons. The order must include:
(A) A notice of
the remedies imposable under subsection (2) of this section and the
availability of a waiver of any mediation requirement; and
(B) A notice in
substantially the following form:
______________________________________________________________________________
When pleaded and shown
in a separate legal action, violation of court orders, including visitation and
parenting time orders, may also result in a finding of contempt, which can lead
to fines, imprisonment or other penalties, including compulsory community
service.
______________________________________________________________________________
(c) A motion,
supported by an affidavit or a declaration under penalty of perjury in the form
required by ORCP 1 E, and an order that may be filed by either party and
providing for waiver of any mediation requirement on a showing of good cause.
(2) In addition
to any other remedy the court may impose to enforce the provisions of a
judgment relating to the parenting plan, the court may:
(a) Modify the
provisions relating to the parenting plan by:
(A) Specifying a
detailed parenting time schedule;
(B) Imposing
additional terms and conditions on the existing parenting time schedule; or
(C) Ordering
additional parenting time, in the best interests of the child, to compensate
for wrongful deprivation of parenting time;
(b) Order the
party who is violating the parenting plan provisions to post bond or security;
(c) Order either
or both parties to attend counseling or educational sessions that focus on the
impact of violation of the parenting plan on children;
(d) Award the
prevailing party expenses, including, but not limited to, attorney fees, filing
fees and court costs, incurred in enforcing the party’s parenting plan;
(e) Terminate,
suspend or modify spousal support;
(f) Terminate,
suspend or modify child support as provided in ORS 107.431; or
(g) Schedule a
hearing for modification of custody as provided in ORS 107.135 (11). [1997
c.707 §3; 2003 c.116 §6; 2003 c.737 §§50,51; 2005 c.702 §§57,58,59; 2007 c.493 §14;
2011 c.595 §75; 2015 c.121 §7; 2019 c.293 §4; 2023 c.302 §4]
107.435 [1971 c.280 §19; repealed by 1973
c.502 §18]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case:
Gilbride v. Smith, 537 P.3d 961 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
Gilbride v. Smith, 537 P.3d 961 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “In January of the following year, father registered the Idaho custody judgment in Oregon and, the following month, moved pursuant to ORS 107.434 to enforce parent- ing time ordered in that judgment.”
State Ex Rel. Maubach v. Sarangi, 196 P.3d 26 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 10× “Although father sought enforcement under ORS 107.434, the trial court concluded that, under ORS 109.”
Hettwer & Hettwer, 340 Or. App. 569 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 7× “135; (2) the trial court did not have authority under ORS 107.434 to modify cus- tody; (3) the trial court did not comply with ORS 107.”
Hettwer & Hettwer, 340 Or. App. 569 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 7× “135; (2) the trial court did not have authority under ORS 107.434 to modify cus- tody; (3) the trial court did not comply with ORS 107.”
In re the Marriage of Heinonen, 14 P.3d 96 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“425 authorizes a court to use the services of a psychologist or mental health expert in undertaking the evaluation of parenting time requests, but neither of those procedures was what the trial court undertook.”
Skaug & Skaug, 348 Or. App. 38 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 5× “On August 19, 2022, while the appeal of the disso- lution judgment was still pending, mother moved the trial court to issue an order to show cause regarding “expedited enforcement of parenting time” pursuant to ORS 107.434. Following a hearing on the motion, the trial court…”
Gilbride v. Smith (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “In January of the following year, father registered the Idaho custody judgment in Oregon and, the following month, moved pursuant to ORS 107.434 to enforce parent- ing time ordered in that judgment.”
Dickson v. Abrams, Jr. (Bankr. D. Or. 2021).
· cites it 2× “In this case, Defendant filed a motion under ORS 107.434 to enforce and modify the existing parenting time plan, thereby triggering the expedited parenting time enforcement procedure in the statute.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.434(2) — 1 case
Skaug & Skaug, 348 Or. App. 38 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
“On August 19, 2022, while the appeal of the disso- lution judgment was still pending, mother moved the trial court to issue an order to show cause regarding “expedited enforcement of parenting time” pursuant to ORS 107.434. Following a hearing on the motion, the trial court…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.434(2)(a) — 1 case
Skaug & Skaug, 348 Or. App. 38 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
“On August 19, 2022, while the appeal of the disso- lution judgment was still pending, mother moved the trial court to issue an order to show cause regarding “expedited enforcement of parenting time” pursuant to ORS 107.434. Following a hearing on the motion, the trial court…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.434(2)(a)(B) — 1 case
Skaug & Skaug, 348 Or. App. 38 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
“On August 19, 2022, while the appeal of the disso- lution judgment was still pending, mother moved the trial court to issue an order to show cause regarding “expedited enforcement of parenting time” pursuant to ORS 107.434. Following a hearing on the motion, the trial court…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.434(2)(a)(C) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Maubach v. Sarangi, 196 P.3d 26 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“Although father sought enforcement under ORS 107.434, the trial court concluded that, under ORS 109.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.434(2)(d) — 3 cases
Gilbride v. Smith, 537 P.3d 961 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“In January of the following year, father registered the Idaho custody judgment in Oregon and, the following month, moved pursuant to ORS 107.434 to enforce parent- ing time ordered in that judgment.”
Gilbride v. Smith (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“In January of the following year, father registered the Idaho custody judgment in Oregon and, the following month, moved pursuant to ORS 107.434 to enforce parent- ing time ordered in that judgment.”
Dickson v. Abrams, Jr. (Bankr. D. Or. 2021).
“In this case, Defendant filed a motion under ORS 107.434 to enforce and modify the existing parenting time plan, thereby triggering the expedited parenting time enforcement procedure in the statute.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.434(l)(b) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Maubach v. Sarangi, 196 P.3d 26 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“Although father sought enforcement under ORS 107.434, the trial court concluded that, under ORS 109.”
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.