Snow v. Snow
Oregon Court of Appeals
74 P.3d 1137 (2003)
- Written by Robert Schefter, JD
Facts
Mr. and Ms. Snow (defendants) are the parents of nine-year-old S. The couple divorced in North Dakota in 1995, and Mr. Snow was granted custody of S, while Ms. Snow was granted visitation rights. Mr. Snow then moved to Oregon, leaving S with his paternal grandmother (Grandmother) (plaintiff) in North Dakota. In 1997, Grandmother and S moved to Oregon to join Mr. Snow. Grandmother was the primary caretaker of S from 1995 to 2001. In June 2001, Grandmother moved S to England with a relative after suspecting Mr. Snow of abusing S. In July 2001, Grandmother petitioned for full custody of S in Oregon, but acknowledged the original North Dakota custody order and recognized that Ms. Snow remained a North Dakota resident. Grandmother argued that Oregon had jurisdiction, because she, S, and Mr. Snow had lived there for four years, and S had spent his formative years there. Mr. Snow argued that Oregon did not have jurisdiction, because North Dakota was the site of the original custody decision, and Ms. Snow continued to live in North Dakota. The trial court ruled that North Dakota had continuing jurisdiction, and Oregon did not have jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). Grandmother appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Haselton, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.