163.555
Criminal nonsupport.
(1) A person commits the crime of criminal nonsupport if, being the parent,
lawful guardian or other person lawfully charged with the support of a child
under 18 years of age, born in or out of wedlock, the person knowingly fails to
provide support for such child.
(2) It is no
defense to a prosecution under this section that either parent has contracted a
subsequent marriage, that issue has been born of a subsequent marriage, that
the defendant is the parent of issue born of a prior marriage, that the child
is being supported by another person or agency or that the defendant was
adjudicated not to be a parent of the child under ORS 109.148.
(3) It is an
affirmative defense to a prosecution under this section that the defendant has
a lawful excuse for failing to provide child support.
(4) If the
defendant intends to rely on the affirmative defense created in subsection (3)
of this section, the defendant must give the district attorney written notice
of the intent to do so at least 30 days prior to trial. The notice must
describe the nature of the lawful excuse upon which the defendant proposes to
rely. If the defendant fails to file notice as required by this subsection, the
defendant may not introduce evidence of a lawful excuse unless the court finds
there was just cause for the defendant’s failure to file the notice within the
required time.
(5) Criminal
nonsupport is a Class C felony. [1971 c.743 §175; 1993 c.33 §308; 1999 c.954 §3;
2005 c.502 §1; 2025 c.592 §100]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
35
cases, 1973–2014 · leading case:
State v. Sprague, 550 P.2d 769 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
State v. Sprague, 550 P.2d 769 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 16× “ORS 163.555. He had previously been charged with the same offense in another indictment which had been returned during 1974 and which alleged failure to support on April 9, 1974.”
State v. Bruce Lincoln Butterfield, 874 P.2d 1339 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 12× “ORS 163.555. We remand for resentencing on the murder by abuse conviction and otherwise affirm.”
Burnette v. Wahl, 588 P.2d 1105 (Or. 1978).
· cites it 4× “She has refused or neglected without lawful excuse to provide support for plaintiff, in violation of ORS 163.555.[ [4] ] "6. Defendant has maliciously, intentionally, and with cruel disregard of the consequences, deserted and abandoned her child.”
State v. Nuzman, 95 P.3d 252 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 10× “Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for three counts of felony criminal nonsupport, ORS 163.555. He argues that the state did not prove that he failed to pay child support "without lawful excuse," as the law requires.”
State v. Sparks, 340 P.3d 688 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 3× “535, “Abandonment of a child,” and ORS 163.555, “Criminal nonsupport.” At that time, ORS 163.”
State Ex Rel. Adult & Fam. Servs. Div. v. Stoutt, 644 P.2d 1132 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 4× “If he fails to abide by that requirement, he confronts essentially the same ancillary risks as those which confront any parent who fails to support a child, see ORS 163.555, and any person who violates the order of a court in a civil proceeding.”
State v. Timmons, 706 P.2d 1018 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 4× “) The Oregon Supreme Court found no vagueness in the phrase “without just or sufficient cause” in the predecessor of ORS 163.555. To the contrary, it held summarily in State v.”
Kaping v. Oregon (In Re Kaping), 13 B.R. 621 (Bankr. D. Or. 1981).
· cites it 2× “On April 25, 1980 the debtor was indicted by the Lane County Grand Jury on a charge of criminal non-support in violation of ORS 163.555. At that time the debtor was unaware of the indictment.”
Goodwin v. State of Oregon, 840 P.2d 1372 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “The petition alleges that petitioner's conviction for criminal nonsupport, ORS 163.555, is unlawful, because the district attorney had excused one of the grand jurors from attendance at the session in which evidence against petitioner was presented and an indictment returned…”
State Ex Rel. Dwyer v. Dwyer, 698 P.2d 957 (Or. 1985).
· cites it 2× “Defendant next contends that the denial of a jury trial in a criminal contempt proceeding for failure to pay court-ordered child support is fundamentally unfair because his conduct equally could have been punished as criminal nonsupport under ORS 163.555. 3 Defendant states that…”
Zockert v. Fanning, 800 P.2d 773 (Or. 1990).
“See ORS 163.555 (criminal non-support); ORS 163.”
State v. Bigelow, 106 P.3d 162 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “ORS 163.555. 1 She assigns error to the trial court’s denial of her motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.555(1) — 12 cases
State v. Timmons, 706 P.2d 1018 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
“) The Oregon Supreme Court found no vagueness in the phrase “without just or sufficient cause” in the predecessor of ORS 163.555. To the contrary, it held summarily in State v.”
State v. Nuzman, 95 P.3d 252 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
“Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for three counts of felony criminal nonsupport, ORS 163.555. He argues that the state did not prove that he failed to pay child support "without lawful excuse," as the law requires.”
State v. Sparks, 340 P.3d 688 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“535, “Abandonment of a child,” and ORS 163.555, “Criminal nonsupport.” At that time, ORS 163.”
State v. Sprague, 550 P.2d 769 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
“ORS 163.555. He had previously been charged with the same offense in another indictment which had been returned during 1974 and which alleged failure to support on April 9, 1974.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.555(2) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.555(2)(a) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.555(2)(b) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.555(f) — 1 case
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.