I

3 4
5

tllif;1; ;;r' r r' " &.Hll'33 loiio'l:9 FILED
IN THE CIRCUIT COURTOF THE STATE OF OREGON OF FOR THE COTJNTY MULTNOMAH In the Matter of:

PEC"-l!ttr^-

6 7 8 9

1006-66086 CaseNumber: RESPONSE PETITIONER'S RESPONDENT'S REGAR-DING

KAINE ANDREWHORMAN, Petitioner, and

ti{ r;iiiiri*

10 11

HOR.}'{AN, LYNN MO'IJI,TON : .TEB.BJ Respordent

r,ilJvfr?01$ I
'itY !"SH i"lCW iN [qHi$[s
Motion

to Respondent/Mother's in this Petitioner/Father Provides matedal response fo! Dismissal.
l! IO

of Peter 2 in representationstheNovember Declaration the Beforeaddressing speciftc RestrainingOrde!' oneimportant Bunahin Supportof Motion to DismissMotion to Modify for her has dismissed requ€st to point needs be broughtto the Cowt's attention Motier

18 t9 20

to no suppodingdocumentation to parentingtime pursuant ORCP54 That rule requires of the achieve dismissal an action.It states: effectthereof' A Voluntary dismissal; provisions to A(1) By plaintiff; by stipulatioD'Subject the an action may be of nde f)-O ana of uny ttutut" of this state' (a) by lrtlng a by dismissed the plaintiff without order of court with the court and servingsuchnotice.onthe noticeof dismissai oI tnal.lr no^ not defendant lessthan five days prior to the day or (b) by filing a strpulailon has counterclaim beenpleaded'or i1 the signedby all iverse partieswho have annear{ dismissal ott*tttu:j);". of action. Unless otherwisestated in the ootice RESPoNSE I Page - PETITIoNER'S

","M -"*ffii-##"*'ffif,t?A6lJ*

&EN6dLrp

I 2 3 4
j

lhati prejudice''except is the -nouce stipulation, dismissal without when frled at - uffi"utitn"opon the merits of dismissaloperates in any co'-rt of the United by a plaintiff who t'^ o""Jiitt"ltt"a the against saTe'lftt::^:it"-:r Statesor of any stale an aotiot

tu ffiil; ;,li 1s"{::im*iffni}ii :!",fi';;"1*
shall be without Prejuolce ot ajudgment dlsmlssar' enter unJ",'ut 'uutttiion'thecounshall an ri) ofthis section, acu(

6 7 8 9 10 11
11

|iffi;" ;;;;;l'ae'*niJ'oi'tmr

-co^un "'dered proper'lr a deems and ionditions as the oourt #t ;;;';h prior to"T'::*]"" by a defendant has counterclalm beenpleaded
tri"ii"i" i" trt":"agment is subsection without Prejudice'

:;'fi -4p)Bv-"g-"i"j#l#;,iliT,jil,xllJlj"j,il"Tff and bvtte

u'l'"tl'T,ihil d;{ffi;ilff "'l' *n:ffi ail,if under tnls defendantmay ProceeoJ; of dismissal' dismissal

13 l4 15 16 11 18 19 20
.t1

has if no counterclaim been a party simplv fites a notigeof {ismissal Typically, aiongwiiir iire is required an pleaded' orderofdismissal has a counterclaim been If pleaded. an to he justify th€reason or shewishes dismiss A partyis notrequredto of notice dismissal. a five-page"Declaration"to Mother's attomeyhasattached is notablcbecause action, That why only speculate Motherhas NoticeofDismissal Onecan havebecna simple whatshould otherwiseshortand simpledocument sucha detailedDeclarationto an attached Mother's in contained the Declarationof statements Fathertakesgreatexceptionto the ,v'urr' rndn(a)Mother'seffoi to le-characterize rthing frarlly' i\ nolhingmorethanl4'r TirarDeclaration, iawyer. , . _. , and to justifyher own litigationdecisions; (b) Mother'sattempt in thingsalready therecord; currentsituation The Court Fatherandhis lawer for Mother's (c) Morher'seffort to blame to strikethe a Fatherhascontemplated motion file is no placefor suchstatements n the Declarationof MotJrer'slawyer recold. lnstead,Father,sbelieves Declalationftom the andby couecting someobvious ns the allegatio of Mother's lawyer' besthandledby rebutting regardingthe law' misstatements have onedaughtertogether'Kiara' beenmaried since2007 They The partieshave

24

"iT,"d#ffifl{l1Ti
RESPONSE 2 Page - PETITIONER'S

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1l

aPetitionto andobtained of filed a Dissolution Madage Petition' age23 months.Father of custody Kiarato Ordergives 28' on (FA?A Order) June 2010 TheFAPA Abuse Prevent Kiaraandher mother' lime between for and Father provides no parenting Kyron Fatheris currendy Fatherhasorlechild trom a previousmarriage' 4' sinceJune 2010' worstnightmareKyronhasbeenmissing anyparent's experienoing for Mother is responsible K1'ron's informationtlat leadshim to believe Fatherhasreceived drsappearance 6' until January 2011' case the motion,thecourt hasabated dissolution Mother's On ard sought motionto modify theFAPA Order caseremainsactive Mother flled a The FAPA for an affidavit in supportof her request time wift Kiala Mothor neversigned parenting flom her the cout with a-Declaratlon tim€. Instead,sheplacedthat issueb€fore parenting and aboutKiaja's needto haveregular madegeneralassertions That Declaration attorney. containednone interests Motller:s motion contactwith her mother'andKiara's best flequent that the Coult typically recelves conclusious' information,beyondlegal a]td t'actual ofthe bestinterests' mayor may not bein a child's what considering typeofpdentingtime wheu parentingtime between the word ofher attomeythat this Instead'Mother asked courtto take Coud can that Mother wrongly assumed this Mother andKiara is in Kiara's bestinterest' Mother'spast concemjng information withoutcomplete determination time makea parenting psychiatric,and mental family relations,andphysical,psychological, conduct,character, health. l Amendment shehasnot yet invokedher Fif Mother hasnot yet takenthe standand the court that Mother's civil attomeyadvised right againstself-incriminalion' lnstead' andthat Mother will not to invoke her privilege againstself-incrimination Mother irret?ds Court that Mother Mother's atlomey informedthe testifi at a// in suppodofher mot1on'
Ca[dC,

IJ

t4
l5

16 l7 18 19 20
11

*'g#trsl3-+trtufkoNE For) 2!16

Eq.lM

& FNG4 Lf,P

Page3 - PETITIONER'SRESPONSE

1

that the informationis grounds on certaindiscoverysubpoenas the quash would seekto self-incrimjnalio-1 tighl against by prolecled Mother's prohibits compellingany the speaking, privilege againstself-incrimination Generally subject that might directly or indilectly infonration of a testlmonialnature personto disclose 101 108 4871J5201'212' SCt2341' liability Doev UnitedStates' criminal to the person a which are to applies "incriminatirgstatements"' Theprivilege L Ed 2d 1840988). in of evidenoe a criminal prosecuuon' tlat might fimish a link in ilre chain corrununiaations LEd 1700950) Thereis no 340 States, US 159' 161".1S Ct223'gS Blauv, United Terutesco' in non'criminalproceedings Amendme[tdght to rcfuseto testifi blar*et Fifth not does apply Thepdvilege 144GaApp 45'240SE 2d586(19?7) lllg lEgegt subjeui without regardfor the contentor board"to preventany ard all testimony "acrossthe

I

6 1 8 9 1C 1I
1't

L4 15 16 11 18 19 2t 2I

but the taking stand' oneto avoid is the under privilege notsimply rightof a person Thebasic for the regarding offense self-incrimination testimonial fromcompelled to befree one rather and the against disgrace no lt provides protection heis ontrial,aswellasothers. which which' of matter whichmightresultfromdisclosure ftom excommunication socicty practical not does liability Thep vilege could grve seto criminal the under circumsiances, not
possibilitiql' remoteandspeculative protectdgainst can (1972) A witness be 406US 472,478,92 5 ct l6'./0'32Ll,d2d234' Comm'n., that is convinced it is pedectly a claimofprivilegeonly if ajudge to compelled testifudespite in the case'tlat the witnessis consideratiolof all the circumstances clearfrom a careful mistaken,andthattleanswerscannotpossiblyhaveatendencytoincriminate.Hoffmanv. (1951)' Ct 814'95L Ed 1118 US UritedStates.341 4'7g,486,'71S establishan absoluteright against againstself-incnminationdoesnot The privilege precludeself-incrimination'whether speakand doesnot automatically being compelledto
6E/d6;liff*iiiNdlLP S Page4- PETITIONER RESPONSE
ftLF@NE(tarzirt

'

24

'"'*S.'lSSg;T'-

I ,, 3

1

officials U s v Washington' govennne!$ pui to or in response questions by spontaneous elemenl every not (1977)'It does prohibit S.Cr.1814'52LEc"2d238 181,97 431U.S. the constitlitiolul to make inciminating admissions; which may influencea c mrnal suspec! and give self-incriminatingtestimony' the witnessnot be compelledto guarantyis only that the free will of the witnesswas the tolality ofthe circumstancas' tlle testwhether,considering overbome ld states: 2 November Declaration attomey's 15 Paragraph of Mother's tutto'dJ:l'd^" to seekl-egul lMlotherwill nol grveup herrighl effofls to withho-lc-arr itttlntt"a t""*"t tlth Kiara [Farher's] c;ntraryto Kiara'sbe$ interesL"' parendng ls comptetely dme

6 7 8 9 i0 11

parenlmg regarding issues ffi*"u"i *a"t af Ai circumstances' day' to iime will need wait until anothcr 90-day custbdy runc 'ruvr vw"'-r atlerthe rk parenungtimeand'/or Mother intendsto seekparenting Obviously

Kiara, protectingthe safetyofhis daughter, is Father,however, focusedon ends' abatement Kyron's conceming Motherhasinformation believes his son,Kyron Father andfinding \'hercabouts.whileMothermaychoosenottopaficipat€inarrymeaningfulwayinthese withoutconsequences' will her proceedings, silence notcome agamsr inferences not does forbidadverse This is a civil case TheFifth Amendment evidenceoffered to to tesdry in lgsponse probative ' to civil actionswhenthe)'refilse parties againstthem.Baxterv.?almigiano,425U's.308,318(1976).lnoregon,apresumption it' suppressing to would be adverse tbe party suppressed willirlly existsthat evidence will ask Father to refuses participate' to proceeds a trial' andMotherstill ORS40.135,lfthis regading Father's factual allegatlons silenceas ar admission Mother's the Court to coDstrue Fifth to rely upon t-he civil litigants who haveattempted Otherjudsdictionshavesanctioned in oivil ald/or refuseto answerquestions to preventdiscoveryrequests Amendment proceedings.InsDarksv.sDarks.?68S.w.2d563(Mo'App.1989)thepetitionefinan
6aFdc;,TiigElf €!64 L/-P

l4 15 16 ' t'l 18 19 20 21

24

paee- pr11o\ERSREsPoNcE 5

"''**s'l'#g;tr"" '"T:*;tsf'f "

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 t0 11 L2

She and maiDtenance attolneyfees for dissolutionof nurriage filed fbr tempomry action thenrefusedonself.incriminationgloundstoaoswellespondent.sinterogatoriesconcemlng r€spondentThe tdal cowt to kilier who attempted kill the her rclationshipto a contuact holdilg that tlle tdal court court reversed' appellate nonetlelessganted her rclief l he abuseditsdisqetionbygranlinglelieftoconcealingpartywhiletlreconcealmentcoNnues' a 730 SW2d269(Mo App 1987)' v in Hasenbuch Haeenbuch' 768S.W.2d at 567 Also, grounds' on self-incrimination to to refused respond questions petitioner the case, dissolution on her supportto the respondent his pleadingsandawardedmaintenance The trial court struck clossPetition.

l4 15 16 'fi' 18 19 20
J1

in a civii ac o rs " whatMothe;hasto hide An attomey auout volumes plead Fifth speaks the car Moth€r'sattorney thatbefore 1 of provisions ORCP ?C' whichprovides by bound the that certifies theposilionis based that of in support a pleading' attorney an submit a.rgument suchinquiryas belief'formedafterthemakingof infomational1d "knowledge, onreasoMble will not speak One only inferthatMother underthecircumslances" can is reasonable Until Mother for Kyron'sdisappearance testimony leadto criminalliability wil! her because
' drawn' therecanbe no other infcrenqes thd ddnies allegations; parenting motionseeking to filed a Response Mother's 25, October 2010,Father On regardbg Mother's supportfor his concerns Kiara. Fatherprovideddeta'ed factual rime with state' Mother'smental regarding and concerns in Kyron'sdisappearance' his involvement at issue'and tiat placedMother's credibility motion containeddocumentatron Father's followtng mentalstatein the daysandweeks the Court with iosight into Mother's provided by the evidencethat she Mother may havefelt embarrassed Whiie Kyron's disappearance. is relevaat the sealchfor Kyrolr' that evidence otherthings on her mjl1drathertJlan had

the advised courti:::::: ow4 thal rhejiaal Motber's qttomelhas

1:t.1-.:';,,.

24

"ir,"##sffH:'
*'#:ti,lBHf'"

S Page6-PETITIONER RESPONSE

1

2 3

is fit to haveanycontactwith reiatedto the issueof whethetMother it because is directly hadthe to Mother' sinceMother already was in Fathel'sResponse a surprise Kiara. Nothing ulder the ptesent visitation with this youngchild in her possessiol By seeking text messages regarding to rcceiveFalher'sconcems Mother swungthe ooorwide open circumstances, state'and credibiLity Mother's fitless asa parent,her mental while Mothei on Octobet29 '2OlO lronically' Mother repliedto Father'sResponse and effort to "viliry Mother" and"inflame Father'sOctober25 fil1ngasan charactedzed in storyappeared The Oregontan Mother"'an "exclusive" publicopinionagainst poison of Mother'sfiling wasthat The 29 Octobor Response' thust Mother's regarding newspaper Mothu's Replywasremarkable' *l"tt*th:P; mothor/child is tylng to "sabotagelhe Frith-er ln Mother failed to address' any but for what it statod, for what it omitted rlot only bcliefthat (b) state; Fathet's mental aboutMother's concems (a) manner Fathe!'s substantive that (c) thehorific situation now ofhis disappearance sonKyron; in is involved $e Mother threatto a beliefthatMotherposes direct and location; (d) Father's Kyrcn's regarding exists simply stated'"nothing in [the of the parties' daughter' Rather'Mother the safetyand welfare no conditionsupor which Mother that Father'sallegations thereare suppods text messages] Mother' attomeyrepresenting to With duerespect the experienced shouldseehei darrghter". theevidenceprovidedbyFatherinhisResponsehasewrythingtadowitlrwhetrerMotler shouldseeKiara. MotheralsoclaimsthatFathelhasimpropellyreferredtoevidencethatMotherhas theseallegedfailues is not tests Mother states"evidenc€about failed two polygraph law ln Mother is mistakenaboutthe in anylegal proceeding tlLisstate" admissiblein t.he case' courtheld (1992)'a divorce 314Or 496'508'840 P2d683 v. Fromdahl Fromdahl, andthe mother's knowledge may havefailed a polygraphtest' that the husband that evidence

5 6 1 8 9 l0 1l
11

t4 15
lo

l7 18 t9 20

24

"T,I,#ffiflff*

Page? - PETITIONER'S RESPONSE

1 2 3 4
5

ofthoselesults,waselroneorrslyexcludedwherethemothersoughttointoducethoseresults their children' abused ofher belieftlat the fatherhad sexually to showthe reasonableness TheNovember2DeclaEtionofMothel,sattomeyalsocontainsafullparagraph forth a veryreasonable in which shesets refering to an "ORCP54 OfferofCompromise' has proceeding"MotherclaimsthatFather in issue thedivorce every to proposal resolve because Fatlerwill respond not does believe that and 5 untilNovember to respond, states she of or any entertain kind ofcompromise settlement "to has Father refused even shebelieves anyissue". feesandcosts to rccove!attolney 54Eis a civil ruletbatallowscivil litigants oRcP ofthat offeledin reliefin excess fails rcoover a{iera..!ialil onepalry lo tiie litigahoD to settlement.The rule Provides: Iftlreofferisnotaccepteda.ndfliedwithinthetimepresoibed,itshallbe may be noli" giveoin eviden;eat trial a$d and withdrawn, snarr -'uideemed on na' b"en aaluai"ated themerits frledwith the ,ou't ontyut" ti" more ajudgment

6 1 8 9 -10 1l

14
l5

16
11

failsto obtain the I'ii"tiii':'ri 'iJ p"ttvasserting claim the a case' pafiv lD il ih" otf"' to illow judgment such ;;;;;i. g"tty...t:*' not -pr€vailing il; .ilt shall^ recovircosts' of theoffer' the ;H;; the r"es or utto^ey ini*rtd after dite disbursements, of ^but shall asserted recover the pafiv was theciaim parfy ;il';;;il;il prevailing not including
ano the asserting claim costs olsbursements' offe of f""t, to-m tft" ti-" ol the service the

18 19 20
tl ,7

cases' doesnot applyto dissolution case thisis a dissolution andORCP54E However, explained: P2d g27(|ggg). Theso!,ders court 158 v. Saunders Saunders. o! App 601,975

forrr; 9f relf-1ltom different cases Dissolution commoy nvolvea hostof to thedet:lllT:* "f or theoartitioning awta or'"ur ^ilJ"onal fropertv' '* t:f ";;-ul"^*. "lll:f and ilHd;",h. ."r "ti' "ppropriaie..parenringchild to pay and of husrs. ln" iJpoJiiln'or otligations thevarieties esrablishmenr of n 'e' suppon. ttt" sup"tt cJtii' notea Ufu'e'ood "pre-vailr'a soousal in parr-v o"te'mine "l"-'L'"' w:hi'b surprising iii"ii""""'",iJ in"" tinatiit alm""uriio ful it regard' isnot 2g2 actiol^' o'" dissolution "'iiz" of an do drestatutes not condition award ,attomey-*:'lt-i T*t;::";13 'prevallrng

24

(]*' -j""*" -requires on proceedirg one parry dissolurion a determination oRcP 54 E, on"" ulgli'iio iontutt' 107.105(l)(h).

"Ti+ffii;+;'**
*i'l?uil'iiiri;"

pase- pErrrroNER's RESPoNSE 8

1

z

apaltv whether "3'-*i:":"-1,.1 u'r"llili'11]i^-i"'ii-":Tils:::,':,'TI: :f"T sucnd favorablejudgmenL" To embarl(on combinalions-01 to ""ft"#fl:ff"'" "t "ttiU *a"*mg rhe.extent which\arious
*""i1-r"qli,E and supportawardsr::tlli-i.-*" custody,visitation, propefiy olsribution' ii ;, it brief' an intrinsicalll.]1T:"ton or less "favorable"itos.*t. g doesnot apply to ploposed trri iiir6i's+ conclude determinatiotr....we " stipulateddissolutionjudgments

5 6 7 8 9
l0 11

is is case conirsing More conceming lrse Mother's ofORCP 54Ein a dissolution of Evidenae into negotiations a court documgot introductionof settlement Mother's or invalidityofa claimOEC to inadnissible provethevalidity offelsis generally settlement claimsthat Fatherhas and is demand "reasonable" further 404. Mother claimsher settlement introducing of or settlement any issues" By to "entefiain any kind of comprolnise refi.rsad
publlcly srar I du ofher senlementdemand'and implymg evidence "sxE2tile"

13 14
ll

demand telmsofher settlement theactual Motherhasjustwaivedany ghtto keop ofthe doubtat this timo Motherwith thebenefit will Father provide co!fidential.However, in settlement Fathe!will actualtermsthat Mother hasdemanded andwill not revealthe suppoftto the to provide spousal doesnot believeit is just andequitable simply statethat he ofhis disappearcnce son' for is he person believes responsible the

16
11

this ? Dated

2010' ofNovember' daY

18 19 20

LLP ANDENGEL RACKNER GEARINC

-7/<
D v/

-/

Laura E. Rackner.UStl 64Jz'u

- -=,'.=rr

OSB952578 BrettE.Engel, for Of AttomeYs Petitioner

24
6E^d6 fiicrM a€vca cwHoNE (s03) en6 22

Ll.P

'"TTtrff8-%T'^

?ase 9 - PETITIONER'S RESPONSE

CERTIFICATEOF SERVICE
true copy 'itii'ris:il'?tliu#;a l. Brett Ensel, do hercby certify that I served a follows: as for ofrecord Respondent' ilren'ewcH, unomevs PeterBunch AttomeYat Law 808SWThird Avenue Suite570 Podland,Oregon 9'1204-2428 961-1559 Faxr(503) Houze Stephen Attomey at Law 1211SWFifth Avenue Suite1240 Orcgon 97204 Poltland, F axt(503)299'6428 or' of the foregoing Response

** collect ,-h:i::I.'l d ru', """ and ma''rs afurl, -byDv mairing true, *.*,;;i"hc"Pf is/are i^S-:ifi:i:*iT:,lrXi'l5T'iiilt of the lastknownofficeaddress(es) the -'"'"" shownabov

ro to enveloDe rncauure*'"" -nvelope, thJaadress(eg ""'' ^ si"*io'iui with person(s), deposited theUnited and
firth below. se1

1"-,{ nr6d^hnn rhedate on oregon thedate s"ti"" utpottland'

1l
It

at PersonG) nril,*",Td::'f:I:iv"j:::T:'rni:$"lerivcred tothe causinga -[-by
llste( last thepelson's(s') kno\ln aclclress

:"il?ilt: ";iTil-lii"i"1f i#l:,,'::";1i1 ;Hil;"J,1flT:"i':[ i'il' ","*iJ":"*11?, set onihedate forthbelow.
ru* setforthbelow. Thereceiving r*iin" completed' was transmission properly 2010' of this Dated ? daY November, and at *^ operating the time of service the

I4

15 16

ff ffi::l1t'l :i"g'lffifi'Jj:T;Ji*,"ffi"*1H'"H','j,"4 ;r"*, ^t1"?:"1'f;:iff
LLP ANDENGEL ITACKNER GEARING

18

20
,l

k

OSB952578 E. Brett Engel, for Petitioner Of Attomeys

camc,

tuc&w

6 D{6aLLP

RESPONSE 10 Page - PETITIONER'S

ftEPtsde

60, 2

ei 16

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful