Does anyone know the correct papers and way to file for a change of jurisdiction from California to Oregon? I need the doc number(s) and the process to do so if anyone knows. Thanks so much. I need to do this quick.

Does anyone know the correct papers and way to file for a change of jurisdiction from California to Oregon? I need the doc number(s) and the process to do so if anyone knows. Thanks so much. I need to do this quick.

I saw your posting on the other thread but first it has to be sorted out. Does the other bio parent still live in Ca ? If so then your not likely going to be able to change it. If not then make your normal filings in Oregon provided you meet the states minimum for residency.

I have been in Oregon since 2005 and my son is only 7. We have been here most of his life, I have been in the same county for 2 yrs. California had orig. jurisdiction and the father still lives there, but the state no longer has any valid information regarding my son. All witnesses and interests of my son are in the state of OR. The father is filing for custody and has a lawyer, I cannot afford one, especially driving to ca from here. He has no legitimate grounds and tends to file just because he can (sort of a vengeful thing) I have never tried to stop visitation nor have I ever discouraged his involvement, quite the opposite in fact. I constantly try to get him to understand and am MORE than fair (to the point I usually take all of the responsibility and all of the burden to give him what he wants to avoid confrontation and fighting) I only try to explain why his requests are unreasonable and try to get him to agree to something more reasonable. When I don't agree he files court papers. He has never been favored in these proceedings thus far, but I'm getting tired of running down to CA every time he gets a wild hair and now he has a lawyer. I can't get a fair hearing down there when all of our information is up here. (medical, mental and school records) So my reason for filing to have the matter transferred is because my son and I are both residents of Oregon and all of our sons records and welfare is handled in Oregon.

You still have to go to Ca for the court dates. So long as the bio dad lives there and is involved in his sons life then they hold the line for court matters. You can gather evidence here and take it with you there. But if your going to represent yourself then be prepared for the outcome no matter how it ends.

Does anyone know the correct papers and way to file for a change of jurisdiction from California to Oregon? I need the doc number(s) and the process to do so if anyone knows. Thanks so much. I need to do this quick.

Sorry if you don't like my answer, but you can't do it. Oregon does not and will NEVER have jurisdiction over this case as long as the dad lives in California and maintains a relationship with your son. So forget it. File in Oregon and you are going to lose, waste your time, your ex's time and a lot of money for attorneys. There is no 'doc' or little piece of paper to fill out.

As I said before, where there is a stay-behind parent the state that issued the original order retains jurisdiction throughout the child's minority as long as the stay-behind parent continues to reside in the state that issued the order or until the issuing state has relinquished jurisdiction to another state. A California court, however, is NOT permitted to relinquish jurisdiction to another state unless it finds that the relationship between the stay-behind parent and the child has deteriorated to such as point as to make retention of jurisdiction unreasonable. (Grahm v. Superior Court (2005) 132 Cal. App. 4th 1193.) As stated in Grahm, "We find that the California Legislature meant to preserve Kumar's construction of 'significant connection' in section 3422, subdivision (a)(1), and we conclude that the original state retains continuing exclusive jurisdiction as long as the parent who is exercising visitation rights still lives in that state and the relationship between that parent and the child has not deteriorated to the point at which the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.

This is a very hard test to meet and one not likely to be satisfied.

Its not about liking or disliking what anyone has to say, I'm seeking facts not someone to agree with me :)

I see your point but what about...

109.744 Exclusive, continuing jurisdiction. (1) Except as otherwise provided in ORS 109.751, a court of this state that has made a child custody determination consistent with ORS 109.741 or 109.747 has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the determination until:
(a) A court of this state determines that neither the child, nor the child and one parent, nor the child and a person acting as a parent have a significant connection with this state and that substantial evidence is no longer available in this state concerning the child’s care, protection, training and personal relationships

Its not about liking or disliking what anyone has to say, I'm seeking facts not someone to agree with me :)

I see your point but what about ....

109.744 Exclusive, continuing jurisdiction. (1) Except as otherwise provided in ORS 109.751, a court of this state that has made a child custody determination consistent with ORS 109.741 or 109.747 has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the determination until:
(a) A court of this state determines that neither the child, nor the child and one parent, nor the child and a person acting as a parent have a significant connection with this state and that substantial evidence is no longer available in this state concerning the child's care, protection, training and personal relationships

This IS the UCCJEA. This is Oregon's codification of it. This is EXACTLY THE SAME statute we have in California and it is the one the California appellate court was interpreting in the case I cited wherein it said that a California court may not give up jurisdiction "unless it finds that the relationship between the stay-behind parent and the child has deteriorated to such as point as to make retention of jurisdiction unreasonable." (Grahm v. Superior Court (2005) 132 Cal. App. 4th 1193.) This is California's interpretation of the "significant connection/substantial evidence" test in this part of the UCCJEA. And this is an almost impossible test to meet.

The California court is not going to give up jurisdiction. That's it.

Okay, well I see your stance on it, though I have watched the California court give up jurisdiction in other cases. So it is entirely possible. The worse that can happen is they say no. I do believe I have a valid reason for changing jurisdiction for several reasons. Unless you're the presiding judge, I'm not going to agree that California "Will not" give up jurisdiction, though I understand that it can be a difficult process. The UCCJEA also states that the jurisdiction belongs to the state in which the child resides. So that could play in as a factor too. That was coming from a California lawyer I spoke with. Thank you so much for all the time you have put into answering this for me. :)

Okay, well I see your stance on it, though I have watched the California court give up jurisdiction in other cases. So it is entirely possible. The worse that can happen is they say no. I do believe I have a valid reason for changing jurisdiction for several reasons. Unless your the presiding judge, I'm not going to agree that California "Will not" give up jurisdiction, though I understand that it can be a difficult process. The UCCJEA also states that the jurisdiction belongs to the state in which the child resides. So that could play in as a factor too. That was coming from a California lawyer I spoke with. Thank you so much for all the time you have put into answering this for me. :)

Well hey, guess what? I'm a California lawyer too, for the last 20 years, and a Certified Family Law Specialist.

The UCCJEA does not state that jurisdiction belongs where the child resides. No. That is an over-simplification and is not always true. So I would not agree with that.

But if you want to give a motion a try in the CA court, good luck to you. But just be aware of the Grahm case.

Will do and thank you just the same. I don't think it will cost much other than the filing fees. Its worth the shot to me. He has been causing issues and problems for us to long. I have to take a stand sometime. I constantly try to give in to what he wants no matter how insane the request so he won't seek revenge like this, but I can't do it anymore. 7 yrs of intimidation and abuse is enough. Its unfair he can drag my butt to court every time he gets pissed off. It costs me too and it takes away from my children. We are going to court the day after my sons birthday over bs and lies because he is mad at me. I will have to leave on my (our) sons birthday to make it down on time. With the start of school and supplies need bought, I now can't afford to do anything for my/his/our son. But does he give a damn? No. He just wants to lower his child support or get out of it all together. If the judge says no, the so be it. But I have a right to try and plea my side. Ya know. Abuse is not a fun thing... and he has been allowed to continue to stalk harass and abuse me even a state away. Thank you again for all your help. I will certainly keep in mind all you have said, it can only help me try and present my case correctly. Thank you. :)

Where in CA do you practice law?

where in CA do you practice law?

I practice in Solano, Yolo and Sacramento Counties usually. I have one case in Sonoma County.

Try the motion that you are planning. I agree it won't hurt to try (the worst that will happen is the judge will turn you down) but it wouldn't be a bad idea for you,as preparation, to read the Grahm case I mentioned, because it's directly on point. You can locate it at California Courts (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov)

Thank you much. I will do that. This is in N. Cali. Seems to be a totally different perception there. I know the law is the law, but you as a lawyer know that where you live makes a difference even if its not supposed to.

Just a quick question, I have been reading this over and over and looking on other questions too. I get the impression that most of the lawyers from CA that answer these are NOT from Northern Oregon. I could be wrong, but... I just watched a CA judge allow a jurisdiction change from CA to another state in a case similar to mine. I was sitting in the court room waiting for my case to start. I saw it with my own eyes. So how can any lawyer say that CA WILL NOT give up jurisdiction. There are actually some judges that care about the best interest of a child.

PS. I also want to point out to anyone who reads this thread, IT HAS BEEN DONE more than once. Jurisdicion CAN be changed. You can't change it just to be mean, or difficult. BUT you can get it changed for the sake of your children. It is not easy, but you can. I am going to fight to change jurisdiction for the best interest of my children. The father living in CA does not give him the right to file papers every time he gets pissed off just to make me spend money and take from my kids. I have the right to ask that a judge allows my children the freedom to not suffer anymore than necessary if the father is going to abuse the court system as he does.