Matter of Marriage of Haxton and Haxton
705 P.2d 721, 299 Or. 616 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Oregon Revised Statute 109.010 establishes an enforceable legal duty for parents to provide financial support to their adult children who are poor and unable to work due to mental or physical incapacity, and this duty can be enforced by the adult child through a direct cause of action.
Facts:
- James's parents were married on December 20, 1958.
- The parents divorced in August 1978 and had four children, including James.
- James is mentally retarded.
- At the time of the trial, James was 20 years old.
- James resided with his mother, was unemployed, and was not attending school.
- Expert testimony established that James's disability prevented him from securing employment.
Procedural Posture:
- James's mother initially filed an action in the trial court (a court of first instance) to modify the dissolution decree to increase support for a minor son and to require father (McLinden) to provide support for James.
- Two months later, James's mother filed a separate action for James’s support in her own name in the trial court, which was subsequently amended to an action in James’s own name with mother as guardian ad litem.
- Both actions were consolidated for trial in the trial court.
- The trial court issued a judgment that included an award of monthly support payments of $225 to James in the separate action for support.
- Father (McLinden) appealed the provision of the judgment awarding support to James to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
- The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, finding that ORS 109.010 only stated a legal duty to support and provided no mechanism by which to enforce the obligation.
- James (through his mother as guardian ad litem) petitioned the Oregon Supreme Court for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does ORS 109.010 provide an enforceable cause of action for support against a parent for an adult child who is mentally handicapped and unable to secure employment?
Opinions:
Majority - Roberts, J.
Yes, ORS 109.010 provides an enforceable cause of action for support against a parent for an adult child who is mentally handicapped and unable to secure employment. The Court reasoned that ORS 109.010 codifies a legal obligation of parental support for dependent children that existed in American common law, distinct from the public welfare system's "poor laws." The historical development of this statute, parallel to the poor laws but separate, indicates it was intended to recognize private familial obligations. The term "children" in the statute connotes a familial relationship rather than a temporary status limited to minority, especially given the statute's reciprocal duty for children to support parents. When a statute creates a right without specifying an exclusive enforcement mechanism, that right can be enforced through any appropriate general legal procedure. The court found no evidence that the legislature intended existing domestic relations or public welfare statutes to be exclusive enforcement procedures for the duty established in ORS 109.010, particularly when no other statutory procedure covered an adult child not eligible for public assistance. Citing precedents from other states (e.g., Paxton v. Paxton, Crain v. Mallone, Schultz v. Western Farm Tractor Co., Prosser v. Prosser), the Court affirmed that the parental duty of support extends to adult children who are incapacitated and unable to support themselves. Therefore, the trial court's award of support to James was proper, and the Court of Appeals' reversal was erroneous.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope and enforceability of parental support obligations in Oregon, establishing that these duties extend beyond the age of majority for adult children unable to work due to disability. It distinguishes private familial support duties from public welfare statutes, underscoring that the former are independently enforceable even without explicit statutory enforcement procedures. This ruling provides a vital avenue for support for vulnerable adult individuals and emphasizes a broad interpretation of "children" in familial support contexts, potentially influencing future interpretations of similar relational terms in other statutes.
