Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 125.305 (2026)

Order of appointment

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

      125.305 Order of appointment. (1) After determining that conditions for the appointment of a guardian have been established, the court may appoint a guardian as requested if the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that:

      (a) The respondent is a minor in need of a guardian, the respondent is incapacitated or the respondent is a vulnerable youth;

      (b) The appointment is necessary as a means of providing continuing care and supervision of the respondent; and

      (c) The nominated person is both qualified and suitable, and is willing to serve.

      (2) The court shall make a guardianship order that is no more restrictive upon the liberty of the protected person than is reasonably necessary to protect the person. In making the order the court shall consider the information in the petition, the report of the visitor, the report of any physician, naturopathic physician or psychologist who has examined the respondent, if there was an examination, and the evidence presented at any hearing.

      (3) The court may require that a guardian post bond.

      (4) The Department of Human Services may be appointed guardian of a minor if the minor has no living parents and if no willing, qualified and suitable relative or other person has petitioned the court for appointment as a guardian. [1995 c.664 §28; 2017 c.356 §11; 2021 c.399 §11]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: Burk v. Hall, 62 P.3d 394 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Burk v. Hall, 62 P.3d 394 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 15× “That assertion appears to flow from the assumption of both parties that ORS 125.305, not ORS 109.119, is the controlling statute.”
Kelley v. Gibson, 56 P.3d 925 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 19× “In these consolidated proceedings, mother appeals (1) a judgment appointing respondents Michael and Debra Kelley (the Kelleys) guardians of mother’s daughter Brittany, ORS 125.305; (2) a judgment appointing respondents Norman and Darla Wagner (the Wagners) guardians of mother’s…”
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. v. Smith, 133 P.3d 924 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 17× “Such appointments are governed by ORS 125.305. [3] ORS 125.305(1), in turn, allows the court to appoint a guardian for a "respondent," including a minor, if the court determines by "clear and convincing evidence" that the minor respondent "is incapacitated," "[t]he appointment…”
Keffer v. A. R. M., 497 P.3d 781 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 6× “Rather than seeking a guardianship under the juve- nile dependency code, grandfather invoked ORS 125.305, a protective proceeding that falls within the exclusive juris- diction of the probate court.”
State ex rel. Juv. Dep't v. Smith, 133 P.3d 924 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 17× “Such appointments are governed by ORS 125.305. 3 ORS 125.305(1), in turn, allows the court to appoint a guardian for a “respondent,” including a minor, if the court determines by “clear and convincing evidence” that the minor respondent “is incapacitated,” “[t]he appointment is…”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. S. M., 300 P.3d 1254 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “It was within that analytical framework that, in Smith , we applied Troxel’s standard to a case in which a mother appealed a juvenile court’s order appointing a health-care guardian under ORS 125.305 for a “conscious but neurologically and orthopedically devastated” child.”
Schaefer v. Schaefer, 52 P.3d 1125 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “That presumption must be overcome by clear and convincing evidence, ORS 125.305(1), that is, evidence of “extraordinary persuasiveness,” State v.”
De La Cruz Gomez & De La Cruz, 342 Or. App. 659 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 12× “ORS 125.305. Where a vulnerable youth guardianship is appropriate, the court shall consider the information in the petition to make a guardianship order that is “no more restrictive upon the vulnerable youth’s liberty than is rea- sonably necessary to protect the person.”
Spady v. Hawkins, 963 P.2d 125 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “ORS 125.305. She asserts, inter alia, that the appointment was erroneous because the petition for appointment of the guardian and the related notice to the protected person did not comply with the requirements of ORS 125.”
J. J. S. W. v. M. a. W., 342 Or. App. 839 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “Nonprecedential Memo Op: 342 Or App 839 (2025) 841 PER CURIAM This case concerns limited guardianships pursuant to ORS 125.305, for two brothers, M and R, ages nine and seven, respectively.”
McCoy v. McCoy, 349 Or. App. 532 (Or. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 3× “ORS 125.305. Any guardianship must be no more restrictive than reasonably necessary.”
J. J. S. W. v. M. a. W., 342 Or. App. 839 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “Nonprecedential Memo Op: 342 Or App 839 (2025) 841 PER CURIAM This case concerns limited guardianships pursuant to ORS 125.305, for two brothers, M and R, ages nine and seven, respectively.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 125.305(1) — 6 cases
Burk v. Hall, 62 P.3d 394 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “That assertion appears to flow from the assumption of both parties that ORS 125.305, not ORS 109.119, is the controlling statute.”
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. v. Smith, 133 P.3d 924 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “Such appointments are governed by ORS 125.305. [3] ORS 125.305(1), in turn, allows the court to appoint a guardian for a "respondent," including a minor, if the court determines by "clear and convincing evidence" that the minor respondent "is incapacitated," "[t]he appointment…”
Kelley v. Gibson, 56 P.3d 925 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “In these consolidated proceedings, mother appeals (1) a judgment appointing respondents Michael and Debra Kelley (the Kelleys) guardians of mother’s daughter Brittany, ORS 125.305; (2) a judgment appointing respondents Norman and Darla Wagner (the Wagners) guardians of mother’s…”
State ex rel. Juv. Dep't v. Smith, 133 P.3d 924 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “Such appointments are governed by ORS 125.305. 3 ORS 125.305(1), in turn, allows the court to appoint a guardian for a “respondent,” including a minor, if the court determines by “clear and convincing evidence” that the minor respondent “is incapacitated,” “[t]he appointment is…”
Schaefer v. Schaefer, 52 P.3d 1125 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “That presumption must be overcome by clear and convincing evidence, ORS 125.305(1), that is, evidence of “extraordinary persuasiveness,” State v.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 125.305(1)(a) — 4 cases
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. v. Smith, 133 P.3d 924 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “Such appointments are governed by ORS 125.305. [3] ORS 125.305(1), in turn, allows the court to appoint a guardian for a "respondent," including a minor, if the court determines by "clear and convincing evidence" that the minor respondent "is incapacitated," "[t]he appointment…”
De La Cruz Gomez & De La Cruz, 342 Or. App. 659 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “ORS 125.305. Where a vulnerable youth guardianship is appropriate, the court shall consider the information in the petition to make a guardianship order that is “no more restrictive upon the vulnerable youth’s liberty than is rea- sonably necessary to protect the person.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. J. M. -A. (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
McCoy v. McCoy, 349 Or. App. 532 (Or. Ct. App. 2026). “ORS 125.305. Any guardianship must be no more restrictive than reasonably necessary.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 125.305(1)(b) — 2 cases
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. v. Smith, 133 P.3d 924 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “Such appointments are governed by ORS 125.305. [3] ORS 125.305(1), in turn, allows the court to appoint a guardian for a "respondent," including a minor, if the court determines by "clear and convincing evidence" that the minor respondent "is incapacitated," "[t]he appointment…”
De La Cruz Gomez & De La Cruz, 342 Or. App. 659 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “ORS 125.305. Where a vulnerable youth guardianship is appropriate, the court shall consider the information in the petition to make a guardianship order that is “no more restrictive upon the vulnerable youth’s liberty than is rea- sonably necessary to protect the person.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 125.305(1)(c) — 1 case
Spady v. Hawkins, 963 P.2d 125 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “ORS 125.305. She asserts, inter alia, that the appointment was erroneous because the petition for appointment of the guardian and the related notice to the protected person did not comply with the requirements of ORS 125.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 125.305(2) — 4 cases
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. v. Smith, 133 P.3d 924 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “Such appointments are governed by ORS 125.305. [3] ORS 125.305(1), in turn, allows the court to appoint a guardian for a "respondent," including a minor, if the court determines by "clear and convincing evidence" that the minor respondent "is incapacitated," "[t]he appointment…”
State ex rel. Juv. Dep't v. Smith, 133 P.3d 924 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “Such appointments are governed by ORS 125.305. 3 ORS 125.305(1), in turn, allows the court to appoint a guardian for a “respondent,” including a minor, if the court determines by “clear and convincing evidence” that the minor respondent “is incapacitated,” “[t]he appointment is…”
De La Cruz Gomez & De La Cruz, 342 Or. App. 659 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “ORS 125.305. Where a vulnerable youth guardianship is appropriate, the court shall consider the information in the petition to make a guardianship order that is “no more restrictive upon the vulnerable youth’s liberty than is rea- sonably necessary to protect the person.”
McCoy v. McCoy, 349 Or. App. 532 (Or. Ct. App. 2026). “ORS 125.305. Any guardianship must be no more restrictive than reasonably necessary.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 125.305(l)(a) — 2 cases
Burk v. Hall, 62 P.3d 394 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “That assertion appears to flow from the assumption of both parties that ORS 125.305, not ORS 109.119, is the controlling statute.”
State ex rel. Juv. Dep't v. Smith, 133 P.3d 924 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “Such appointments are governed by ORS 125.305. 3 ORS 125.305(1), in turn, allows the court to appoint a guardian for a “respondent,” including a minor, if the court determines by “clear and convincing evidence” that the minor respondent “is incapacitated,” “[t]he appointment is…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 125.305(l)(b) — 1 case
State ex rel. Juv. Dep't v. Smith, 133 P.3d 924 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “Such appointments are governed by ORS 125.305. 3 ORS 125.305(1), in turn, allows the court to appoint a guardian for a “respondent,” including a minor, if the court determines by “clear and convincing evidence” that the minor respondent “is incapacitated,” “[t]he appointment is…”
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.