419B.395
Judgment of parentage or nonparentage.
(1) If in any proceeding under ORS 419B.100 or 419B.500 the juvenile court
determines that the child or ward has fewer than two legal parents or that
parentage is disputed as allowed in ORS 109.067 or 109.070, the court may enter
a judgment of parentage or a judgment of nonparentage in compliance with the
provisions of ORS 109.065, 109.067, 109.070, 109.124 to 109.171, 109.181 to
109.203, 109.326 and 419B.609.
(2) The court may
not enter a judgment under subsection (1) of this section unless the court:
(a) Determines
that the inquiry requirements under ORS 419B.636 (2), to determine whether the
child is an Indian child, have been satisfied;
(b) Makes a
finding regarding whether the child is an Indian child, subject to the
procedures under ORS 419B.636 (4); and
(c) Finds that
adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard was provided to:
(A) The parties
to the proceeding;
(B) The person
alleged or claiming to be the child or ward’s parent;
(C) The
Administrator of the Division of Child Support of the Department of Justice or
the branch office providing support services to the county in which the court
is located; and
(D) If the child
is an Indian child, the child’s Indian custodian and tribe, together with the
notice of proceeding in the form required under ORS 419B.639 (2).
(3) When
appropriate, the court shall inform a person before the court claiming to be
the parent of a child or ward that parentage establishment services may be
available through the administrator if the child or ward:
(a) Is a child
born out of wedlock;
(b) Has not been
placed for adoption; and
(c) Has fewer
than two legal parents.
(4) As used in
this section:
(a) “Administrator”
has the meaning given that term in ORS 25.010.
(b) “Child born
out of wedlock” has the meaning given that term in ORS 109.124.
(c) “Legal parent”
has the meaning given that term in ORS 419A.004. [2005 c.160 §8; 2015 c.254 §10;
2015 c.795 §3; 2017 c.651 §42; 2021 c.398 §46; 2021 c.489 §60; 2025 c.592 §19]
(Support)
Notes of Decisions
Dept. of Human Servs. v. C. M. H., 455 P.3d 576 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 16× “6 Finally, appellant does not challenge the merits of the juvenile court’s parentage determination or renew her estoppel argument on appeal, and thus we express no opin- ion on the sufficiency of the juvenile court’s findings and conclusions in those regards.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. C. M. H., 486 P.3d 772 (Or. 2021).
· cites it 6× “Before we do, however, we note that petitioner does not contend that parentage disputes are entirely beyond the scope of proceedings that the juvenile court is authorized to hear because she recognizes that ORS 419B.395 grants the juvenile court authority to resolve some…”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. J. B., 273 P.3d 196 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 8× “Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the court to consider the merits of child’s motion under ORS 419B.395, the statute authorizing the issuance of judgments of paternity and nonpaternity during the pendency of a juvenile proceeding, such as this one, where a child has no…”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. J. N., 291 P.3d 765 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“2 Before the juvenile court entered a judgment of paternity under ORS 419B.395 establishing father’s status as M’s legal father, DHS filed a petition for jurisdiction, naming him as the putative father of M and asserting that the court retained jurisdiction over M because “…”
State ex rel. Juv. Dep't v. G. W., 177 P.3d 24 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “070(l)(a) (2005), no blood tests previously were performed to establish paternity, he timely filed a motion to reopen the issue of paternity, and the juvenile court had authority under ORS 419B.395 to enter a judgment of non-paternity.”
State ex rel. Juv. Dep't v. L. V., 182 P.3d 866 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“The results of the genetic testing confirmed that father is A’s biological parent, and DHS moved to establish his legal paternity under ORS 419B.395 and ORS 109.258. The court entered a general judgment establishing father’s paternity a few days before the permanency hearing.”
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. v. Gw, 177 P.3d 24 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “070(1)(a) (2005), no blood tests previously were performed to establish paternity, he *28 timely filed a motion to reopen the issue of paternity, and the juvenile court had authority under ORS 419B.395 to enter a judgment of nonpaternity.”
Davis v. Deen, 567 P.3d 499 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“Rather, petitioner insisted that no such efforts were necessary despite the guardian’s objections 1 Petitioner requests that we review the trial court’s factual findings de novo pursuant to ORS 19.415, however, the basis upon which we affirm the trial court does not involve any…”
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dept. v. LV, 182 P.3d 866 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“The results of the genetic testing confirmed that father is A's biological parent, and DHS moved to establish his legal paternity under ORS 419B.395 and ORS 109.258. The court entered a general judgment establishing father's paternity a few days before the permanency hearing.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.395(1) — 3 cases
Dept. of Human Servs. v. C. M. H., 455 P.3d 576 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“6 Finally, appellant does not challenge the merits of the juvenile court’s parentage determination or renew her estoppel argument on appeal, and thus we express no opin- ion on the sufficiency of the juvenile court’s findings and conclusions in those regards.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. C. M. H., 486 P.3d 772 (Or. 2021).
“Before we do, however, we note that petitioner does not contend that parentage disputes are entirely beyond the scope of proceedings that the juvenile court is authorized to hear because she recognizes that ORS 419B.395 grants the juvenile court authority to resolve some…”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. J. B., 273 P.3d 196 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the court to consider the merits of child’s motion under ORS 419B.395, the statute authorizing the issuance of judgments of paternity and nonpaternity during the pendency of a juvenile proceeding, such as this one, where a child has no…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.395(4)(c) — 1 case
Dep't of Human Servs. v. J. B., 273 P.3d 196 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the court to consider the merits of child’s motion under ORS 419B.395, the statute authorizing the issuance of judgments of paternity and nonpaternity during the pendency of a juvenile proceeding, such as this one, where a child has no…”
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.