109.096 Notice
to alleged genetic parent when parentage not established. (1) When the parentage of a child
has not been established under ORS 109.065 or has not been established or
acknowledged under ORS 419B.609, the alleged genetic parent is entitled to
reasonable notice in adoption or other court proceedings concerning the custody
of the child, except for juvenile court proceedings, if the petitioner knows,
or by the exercise of ordinary diligence should have known:
(a) That the
child resided with the alleged genetic parent at any time during the 60 days
immediately preceding the initiation of the proceeding, or at any time since
the child’s birth if the child is less than 60 days old when the proceeding is
initiated; or
(b) That the
alleged genetic parent repeatedly has contributed or tried to contribute to the
support of the child during the year immediately preceding the initiation of
the proceeding, or during the period since the child’s birth if the child is
less than one year old when the proceeding is initiated.
(2) Except as
provided in subsection (3) or (4) of this section, a verified statement of the
parent who gave birth to the child or of the petitioner, or an affidavit of
another person with knowledge of the facts, filed in the proceeding and
asserting that the child has not resided with the alleged genetic parent, as
provided in subsection (1)(a) of this section, and that the alleged genetic
parent has not contributed or tried to contribute to the support of the child,
as provided in subsection (1)(b) of this section, is sufficient proof to enable
the court to grant the relief sought without notice to the alleged genetic
parent.
(3) The alleged
genetic parent is entitled to reasonable notice in a proceeding for the
adoption of the child if notice of the initiation of a proceeding to adjudicate
parentage as required by ORS 109.167 is on file with the Center for Health
Statistics of the Oregon Health Authority prior to the child’s being placed in
the physical custody of a person or persons for the purpose of adoption by
them. If the notice of the initiation of a proceeding to adjudicate parentage
is not on file at the time of the placement, the alleged genetic parent is
barred from contesting the adoption proceeding.
(4) Except as
otherwise provided in subsection (3) of this section, the alleged genetic
parent is entitled to reasonable notice in court proceedings concerning the
custody of the child, other than juvenile court proceedings, if notice of the
initiation of a proceeding to adjudicate parentage as required by ORS 109.167
is on file with the Center for Health Statistics prior to the initiation of the
proceedings.
(5) Notice under
this section is not required to be given to an alleged genetic parent who was a
party to a proceeding to adjudicate parentage under ORS 109.125 or to a
proceeding to acknowledge or establish parentage of an Indian child under ORS
419B.609 if the proceeding under ORS 109.125 or 419B.609 was dismissed or
resulted in a finding that the alleged genetic parent was not the parent of the
child.
(6) The notice
required under this section shall be given in the manner provided in ORS
109.330.
(7) No notice
given under this section need disclose the name of the parent who gave birth to
the child.
(8) An individual
who is an alleged genetic parent has the primary responsibility to protect the
individual’s rights, and nothing in this section may be used to set aside an
act of a permanent nature including, but not limited to, adoption or
termination of parental rights, unless the alleged genetic parent establishes
within one year after the entry of the final judgment or order fraud on the
part of a petitioner in the proceeding with respect to matters specified in
subsections (1) to (5) of this section. [1975 c.640 §7; 1979 c.491 §1; 1983
c.709 §39; 1995 c.90 §1; 2003 c.576 §137; 2005 c.160 §5; 2009 c.595 §68; 2017
c.651 §20; 2021 c.398 §44; 2023 c.9 §6; 2025 c.592 §12]
Notes of Decisions
P & P v. Child.'s Servs. Div., 673 P.2d 864 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 11× “As it applies here, ORS 109.096 violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
Hallford v. Smith, 852 P.2d 249 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 16× “” Although it may be unusual for the legislature to *62 provide a limitation on an action so that a timely filed action may become time-barred while pending, examination of the circumstances surrounding the promulgation of ORS 109.”
Hylland v. Doe, 867 P.2d 551 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 7× “225, the statute governing filiation proceedings, and ORS 109.096, the statute governing notice to putative fathers.”
Kessel v. Leavitt, 511 S.E.2d 720 (W. Va. 1998).
· cites it 2× “1997)] (regarding consent to adoption by mother who is not married); Or. Rev.Stat. § 109.096 (1983) (Act, 1983 Oregon Laws 1272, 1283, ch.”
Gruett v. Nesbitt, 17 P.3d 1090 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 35× “) ORS 109.096 provides, in part: “(3) The putative father shall be entitled to reasonable notice in a proceeding for the adoption of the child if notice of the initiation of filiation proceedings as required by ORS 109.”
Burns v. Crenshaw, 733 P.2d 922 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 8× “ORS 109.096 5 describes situations in which a putative *262 father is entitled to notice.”
Warren v. Joeckel, 656 P.2d 329 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 5× “If we were to read the statute as husband suggests, subsections (1) and (2) would be meaningless.”
G.S.B. v. S.M.D., 720 P.2d 1339 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 4× “The court concluded that plaintiff had the opportunity to file a timely notice and denied his motion to abate, because under the statute he is barred from challenging the adoption.”
Hiskey v. Hamilton, 824 P.2d 1170 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 8× “The trial court erred in ruling otherwise. It also appears that the trial court confused the provision of services, OAR 412-24-030, with the provision of notice to putative fathers, which is addressed in ORS 109.”
Ex Parte D.B., 975 So. 2d 940 (Ala. 2007).
“1 ; Or.Rev.Stat. § 109.096(3); 23 Pa. Cons.Stat.”
Vanlue v. Collins, 779 P.2d 163 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 7× “” Petitioners moved to dismiss under ORCP 54B(2), asserting that objector had not presented evidence sufficient to entitle him to notice under ORS 109.096 or to object under ORS 109.098.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 109.096(1) — 1 case
Vanlue v. Collins, 779 P.2d 163 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
“” Petitioners moved to dismiss under ORCP 54B(2), asserting that objector had not presented evidence sufficient to entitle him to notice under ORS 109.096 or to object under ORS 109.098.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 109.096(1)(b) — 3 cases
Hylland v. Doe, 867 P.2d 551 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
“225, the statute governing filiation proceedings, and ORS 109.096, the statute governing notice to putative fathers.”
Hiskey v. Hamilton, 824 P.2d 1170 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
“The trial court erred in ruling otherwise. It also appears that the trial court confused the provision of services, OAR 412-24-030, with the provision of notice to putative fathers, which is addressed in ORS 109.”
Vanlue v. Collins, 779 P.2d 163 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
“” Petitioners moved to dismiss under ORCP 54B(2), asserting that objector had not presented evidence sufficient to entitle him to notice under ORS 109.096 or to object under ORS 109.098.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 109.096(2) — 2 cases
P & P v. Child.'s Servs. Div., 673 P.2d 864 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
“As it applies here, ORS 109.096 violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
Vanlue v. Collins, 779 P.2d 163 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
“” Petitioners moved to dismiss under ORCP 54B(2), asserting that objector had not presented evidence sufficient to entitle him to notice under ORS 109.096 or to object under ORS 109.098.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 109.096(3) — 7 cases
Hylland v. Doe, 867 P.2d 551 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
“225, the statute governing filiation proceedings, and ORS 109.096, the statute governing notice to putative fathers.”
Gruett v. Nesbitt, 17 P.3d 1090 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“) ORS 109.096 provides, in part: “(3) The putative father shall be entitled to reasonable notice in a proceeding for the adoption of the child if notice of the initiation of filiation proceedings as required by ORS 109.”
Ex Parte D.B., 975 So. 2d 940 (Ala. 2007).
“1 ; Or.Rev.Stat. § 109.096(3); 23 Pa. Cons.Stat.”
G.S.B. v. S.M.D., 720 P.2d 1339 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
“The court concluded that plaintiff had the opportunity to file a timely notice and denied his motion to abate, because under the statute he is barred from challenging the adoption.”
Hiskey v. Hamilton, 824 P.2d 1170 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
“The trial court erred in ruling otherwise. It also appears that the trial court confused the provision of services, OAR 412-24-030, with the provision of notice to putative fathers, which is addressed in ORS 109.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 109.096(4) — 2 cases
Hylland v. Doe, 867 P.2d 551 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
“225, the statute governing filiation proceedings, and ORS 109.096, the statute governing notice to putative fathers.”
Burns v. Crenshaw, 733 P.2d 922 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
“ORS 109.096 5 describes situations in which a putative *262 father is entitled to notice.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 109.096(7) — 1 case
P & P v. Child.'s Servs. Div., 673 P.2d 864 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
“As it applies here, ORS 109.096 violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 109.096(8) — 6 cases
Hallford v. Smith, 852 P.2d 249 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“” Although it may be unusual for the legislature to *62 provide a limitation on an action so that a timely filed action may become time-barred while pending, examination of the circumstances surrounding the promulgation of ORS 109.”
Gruett v. Nesbitt, 17 P.3d 1090 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“) ORS 109.096 provides, in part: “(3) The putative father shall be entitled to reasonable notice in a proceeding for the adoption of the child if notice of the initiation of filiation proceedings as required by ORS 109.”
P & P v. Child.'s Servs. Div., 673 P.2d 864 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
“As it applies here, ORS 109.096 violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
Burns v. Crenshaw, 733 P.2d 922 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
“ORS 109.096 5 describes situations in which a putative *262 father is entitled to notice.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 109.096(l) — 1 case
Hallford v. Smith, 852 P.2d 249 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“” Although it may be unusual for the legislature to *62 provide a limitation on an action so that a timely filed action may become time-barred while pending, examination of the circumstances surrounding the promulgation of ORS 109.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 109.096(l)(b) — 1 case
Hallford v. Smith, 852 P.2d 249 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“” Although it may be unusual for the legislature to *62 provide a limitation on an action so that a timely filed action may become time-barred while pending, examination of the circumstances surrounding the promulgation of 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.