Mora and Mora
Citation
341 Or. App. 96
Court
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided
June 4, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Importance
45%
Practice Areas
Case Summary
96 June 4, 2025 No. 495 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1). IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of the Marriage of Benjamin Chad MORA, Petitioner-Appellant, and Jade Marina MORA, Respondent-Respondent. Washington County Circuit Court 22DR03974; A181212 D. Charles Bailey, Jr., Judge. Submitted March 18, 2025. Benjamin Chad Mora filed the briefs pro se. Andrew W. Newsom filed the briefs for respondent. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Hellman, Judge. ORTEGA, P. J. Affirmed. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 341 Or App 96 (2025) 97 ORTEGA, P. J. Husband appeals a dissolution judgment involving his two minor children, raising five assignments of error. We conclude that the trial court did not err as to assign- ments one, three, four, and five; husband seeks relief that would require us to engage in de novo review, but this is not an extraordinary case that merits the exercise of such review. ORAP 5.40(8)(c); Brush and Brush, 319 Or App 1, 3, 509 P3d 124 (2022). We write only to address husband’s second assign- ment of error asserting that the trial court erred by grant- ing mother unequal parenting time without determining, by written findings, that equal parenting time was not in the best interests of the children as required by ORS 107.102(5)(c). Husband did not preserve his argument on appeal, and we do not exercise our discretion to review it as plain error. Therefore, we affirm. The parties were married in 2017 and shared two children together. During the proceedings below, the parties stipulated to a parenting time agreement that the court and parties referred to as “50/50,” where husband had the chil- dren from Sunday at 10:00 a.m. to Wednesday at 12:00 p.m. Despite the description the parties and the court used, in reality the stipulated agreement gave wife 209 overnights and husband only 156 overnights per year, given the mid- week change with no alternating days. Husband requested that this “50/50” parenting agreement continue, and the trial court agreed in its written decision.1 Mother’s attorney drafted the court’s judgment. The parenting plan attached to that proposed general judg- ment contained minor changes: Husband’s parenting time would begin at 12:00 p.m. on Sunday and would end when he dropped the children off for school Wednesday morning. On Wednesdays that the children did not have school, the drop-off time would remain at 12:00 p.m. Husband objected, arguing that the parenting plan did not provide the equal 1 We note that husband did offer an alternative parenting plan that would have the children alternate weeks and holidays with each party. However, the record also reflects that husband requested that the parenting plan already in place continue, and the trial court’s written decision reflected that resolution. 98 Mora and Mora parenting time that he had requested. In his objections, husband did not request that the court make a best inter- ests finding as required by ORS 107.102(5)(c). Husband filed a timely appeal of the trial court’s judgment. On appeal, husband notes the lack of required findings and asks that we “modify the general judgment to incorporate [husband’s] proposed—and the trial judge’s ordered—[“50/50”] parent- ing plan.” ORS 107.102(5)(c) requires that, “[i]f a parent requests that the court order equal parenting time in the parenting plan, the court may deny the request if the court determines, by written findings, that equal parenting time is not in the best interests of the child or endangers the safety of the parties.” We have previously held that “to preserve for appeal a procedural claim of error, i.e., a claim that the lack of findings was an error in and of itself, then it was incumbent upon [husband] to request findings.” Jaimez v. Rosales, 323 Or App 741, 743, 525 P3d 92 (2023) (emphasis in original). To adequately preserve an issue, “a party must provide the trial court with an explanation of his or her objection that is spe- cific enough to ensure that the court can identify its alleged error with enough clarity to permit it to consider and correct the error immediately, if correction is warranted.” State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335, 343, 15 P3d 22 (2000). Husband did not preserve his argument that the court failed to make the requisite findings below. In addi- tion, husband offers no argument on appeal that we should review the error as plain, and we decline to do so in this case. See Aile
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 4, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
AI-generated comprehensive summary with legal analysis
Case Overview
Case Name: Mora and Mora
Citation: 341 Or. App. 96
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
Date: June 4, 2025
Jurisdiction: SA
In the matter of the marriage dissolution between Benjamin Chad Mora (Petitioner-Appellant) and Jade Marina Mora (Respondent-Respondent), the Court of Appeals of Oregon addressed a dispute regarding parenting time for their two minor children. The case highlights critical aspects of family law, particularly concerning parenting time agreements and the best interests of the child standard.
Key Legal Issues
The primary legal issues in this case included:
- Unequal Parenting Time: Whether the trial court erred in granting the mother unequal parenting time without proper written findings.
- Preservation of Error: Whether the husband preserved his argument for appeal regarding the lack of findings on the best interests of the children.
Court's Decision
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that:
- The trial court did not err in its judgment regarding the parenting time agreement.
- The husband's argument regarding the lack of findings was not preserved for appeal.
Legal Reasoning
The court's reasoning centered on several key points:
- Best Interests Standard: Under ORS 107.102(5)(c), if a parent requests equal parenting time, the court must determine if such an arrangement is in the best interests of the child. The trial court did not make the required findings, but the husband failed to preserve this argument for appeal.
- Preservation of Error: The court emphasized that to preserve a procedural claim of error, a party must clearly articulate their objections to allow the trial court to address them. The husband did not adequately request findings during the trial, which led to the dismissal of his appeal on this point.
Key Holdings
- The trial court's parenting time agreement was affirmed, as it was within the court's discretion.
- The husband's failure to request specific findings on the best interests of the children precluded his appeal on that issue.
- The court declined to exercise discretion to review the alleged error as plain error due to the absence of a compelling justification.
Precedents and Citations
The court referenced several precedents to support its decision, including:
- Brush and Brush, 319 Or App 1 (2022): Discussing the standard for de novo review in family law cases.
- Jaimez v. Rosales, 323 Or App 741 (2023): Addressing the necessity of preserving procedural claims for appeal.
- Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376 (1991): Outlining the court's discretion regarding plain errors.
Practical Implications
This case has significant implications for family law practitioners and parents involved in custody disputes:
- Importance of Documentation: Parents must ensure that any agreements regarding parenting time are clearly documented and reflect the actual arrangement to avoid disputes.
- Preserving Arguments for Appeal: Legal practitioners should advise clients on the importance of preserving arguments during trial to ensure they can be raised on appeal.
- Understanding Best Interests of the Child: Courts are required to consider the best interests of the child in custody arrangements, and parents should be prepared to present evidence supporting their positions.
In conclusion, the Mora and Mora case underscores the complexities of parenting time disputes and the necessity for clear legal arguments and documentation in family law proceedings.
Legal Topics
Areas of law covered in this case
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Judicial Panel
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 4, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools