Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 109.135 (2026)

Circuit court jurisdiction; equity action; place of commencement

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

      109.135 Circuit court jurisdiction; equity action; place of commencement. (1) All judicial proceedings to adjudicate parentage of a child shall be commenced in the circuit court and shall for all purposes be deemed actions in equity. Unless otherwise specifically provided by statute, the proceedings shall be conducted pursuant to the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure, including a proceeding adjudicating parentage that is consolidated with another proceeding under ORS 109.127 or 419B.806.

      (2) A judicial proceeding to adjudicate the parentage of a child shall be commenced and tried, without a jury, in the county:

      (a) Where the child resides;

      (b) If the child does not reside in this state, where the respondent resides or is located;

      (c) If the parent who gave birth to the child or the child’s alleged genetic parent, acknowledged parent, presumed parent or intended parent is deceased, where the estate of the deceased individual is being administered;

      (d) If the child was conceived by assisted reproduction, including under a surrogacy agreement, of the petitioner’s choice; or

      (e) If the child is in the care and custody of the Department of Human Services, where a juvenile court proceeding is pending.

      (3) If judicial proceedings in which the parentage of the same child is at issue are commenced in more than one county, the proceedings shall be stayed except in the county where first commenced until final determination there of venue. A proceeding is considered commenced for purposes of this subsection by the filing of a petition. In determining venue, if the court finds that transfer to another county where a proceeding has been commenced is in the child’s best interest, it may in its discretion order such transfer. When the court enters an order transferring the proceeding to another county, the clerk of the court shall notify the court for the other county of the order, and the court for the other county has exclusive jurisdiction of the proceeding to the same extent and with like effect as though the proceeding were in the court on original jurisdiction. [1969 c.619 §§2,3,7; 1971 c.191 §2; 1979 c.246 §6; 1981 s.s. c.3 §104; 1983 c.762 §3; 1999 c.80 §22; 2013 c.1 §5; 2013 c.126 §3; 2025 c.592 §31]

 

      109.140 [Amended by 1959 c.638 §10; repealed by 1969 c.619 §15]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases, 1971–1999 · leading case: State, Dept. of Human Resources v. Trost, 983 P.2d 549 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
State, Dept. of Human Resources v. Trost, 983 P.2d 549 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 28× “" On August 13, 1997, the department filed its objection to a trial by jury, arguing that section 25 of House Bill 2324 (Oregon Laws 1997, chapter 746) had become effective on August 4, 1997, and that the effect of that bill was to take away respondent's right to a jury trial…”
State Ex Rel. Adult & Fam. Servs. Div. v. Bradley, 666 P.2d 249 (Or. 1983). · cites it 3× “ORS 109.135(3). 2 Defendant raised the statute of limitation as a defense.”
State Ex Rel. Adult & Fam. Servs. Div. v. Bradley, 650 P.2d 91 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 16× “At that time, ORS 109.135 limited the time for bringing filiation proceedings to six years.”
State ex rel. Adult & Fam. Servs. Div. v. Tuttle, 744 P.2d 990 (Or. 1987). · cites it 7× “At that time former ORS 109.135 (3) 2 required that filiation proceedings be commenced within 10 years of the child’s birth.”
Attaway, Inc. v. Saffer, 770 P.2d 596 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “On review, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for attorney fees on the ground that ORCP did not apply to that proceeding, which was commenced before the effective date of ORS 109.135(1), which made the rules applicable to filiation proceedings.”
Wolf v. Goin, 552 P.2d 258 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 3× “Pointing out that ORS 109.135 was enacted some two years after his birth 6 at a time when there existed no statutory limit upon the commencement of a paternity proceeding, in whatever form, petitioner argues that the six-year period incorporated into that statute can have no…”
Clarkston v. Bridge, 539 P.2d 1094 (Or. 1975). · cites it 2× “ORS 109.135, the filiation statute, provides, in part: “(2) All filiation proceedings shall be commenced and tried in the county where either the initiating party or the child resides.”
State Ex. Rel. Jones v. Workman, 579 P.2d 1302 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 3× “The contention is premised on ORS 109.135(1), which provides: "All filiation proceedings shall be commenced in the circuit court and shall for all purposes be deemed suits in equity but either party shall have the right to trial by jury on the issue of paternity.”
Gleason v. Michlitsch, 728 P.2d 965 (Or. Ct. App. 1986). “ORS 109.135(1); ORS 19.125. We modify the judgment and affirm it as modified.”
Warren v. Joeckel, 656 P.2d 329 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “He argues that Warren is barred by laches from seeking a declaration of paternity, and that wife is barred from denying husband’s paternity by laches and estoppel.”
Harris v. Burns, 904 P.2d 648 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “We review de novo, ORS 109.135, and affirm. Father is serving a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for murder, rape, and sexual abuse.”
State v. Gates, 570 P.2d 670 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). “«* * * ijc * 3 ORS 109.135(3) provides: "A proceeding * * * shall be commenced within six years after the birth of the child.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 109.135(1) — 8 cases
State, Dept. of Human Resources v. Trost, 983 P.2d 549 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). “" On August 13, 1997, the department filed its objection to a trial by jury, arguing that section 25 of House Bill 2324 (Oregon Laws 1997, chapter 746) had become effective on August 4, 1997, and that the effect of that bill was to take away respondent's right to a jury trial…”
Attaway, Inc. v. Saffer, 770 P.2d 596 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). “On review, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for attorney fees on the ground that ORCP did not apply to that proceeding, which was commenced before the effective date of ORS 109.135(1), which made the rules applicable to filiation proceedings.”
State Ex. Rel. Jones v. Workman, 579 P.2d 1302 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). “The contention is premised on ORS 109.135(1), which provides: "All filiation proceedings shall be commenced in the circuit court and shall for all purposes be deemed suits in equity but either party shall have the right to trial by jury on the issue of paternity.”
Gleason v. Michlitsch, 728 P.2d 965 (Or. Ct. App. 1986). “ORS 109.135(1); ORS 19.125. We modify the judgment and affirm it as modified.”
Clarkston v. Bridge, 539 P.2d 1094 (Or. 1975). “ORS 109.135, the filiation statute, provides, in part: “(2) All filiation proceedings shall be commenced and tried in the county where either the initiating party or the child resides.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 109.135(3) — 7 cases
State Ex Rel. Adult & Fam. Servs. Div. v. Bradley, 666 P.2d 249 (Or. 1983). “ORS 109.135(3). 2 Defendant raised the statute of limitation as a defense.”
State ex rel. Adult & Fam. Servs. Div. v. Tuttle, 744 P.2d 990 (Or. 1987). “At that time former ORS 109.135 (3) 2 required that filiation proceedings be commenced within 10 years of the child’s birth.”
State Ex Rel. Adult & Fam. Servs. Div. v. Bradley, 650 P.2d 91 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “At that time, ORS 109.135 limited the time for bringing filiation proceedings to six years.”
Wolf v. Goin, 552 P.2d 258 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). “Pointing out that ORS 109.135 was enacted some two years after his birth 6 at a time when there existed no statutory limit upon the commencement of a paternity proceeding, in whatever form, petitioner argues that the six-year period incorporated into that statute can have no…”
State v. Gates, 570 P.2d 670 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). “«* * * ijc * 3 ORS 109.135(3) provides: "A proceeding * * * shall be commenced within six years after the birth of the child.”
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.