3,300 words
Read time @ 250 words/minute: 14 minutes
Executive Summary / TL;DR:
This essay highlights the deep flaws in Oregon’s custody laws, particularly the prohibition on judges ordering joint custody unless both parents agree. Through personal experiences, I illustrate how this law has exacerbated conflicts, created instability for our son, and allowed my former wife to unilaterally make significant decisions without my input. From being falsely accused and subjected to a restraining order to facing challenges in maintaining our religious practices and navigating international travel, these situations have all been worsened by a legal system that prioritizes sole custody at the expense of parental collaboration.
The current law in Oregon often turns one parent into decision-making dictators, undermining the best interests of our children and violating fundamental rights, including religious freedom. The lack of joint custody options leads led to misperceptions among family, friends, and the broader public, causing further strain on our family dynamics.
This essay calls on Oregon legislators to reform these outdated laws, giving judges the discretion to order joint custody when it’s in the child’s best interest. It’s time to protect our children and ensure that both parents have a fair and meaningful role in their lives.
1. Introduction: A Father’s Struggle with Oregon’s Custody Laws
Twelve days. That’s how long it took from the day I supported my wife through her citizenship ceremony—filing the paperwork over many years, paying the fees, driving her there, and even giving a celebratory speech—to the day she told me she wanted a divorce, with no willingness to revisit therapy or consider a temporary separation. Those days were marked by emotional coldness, but nothing prepared me for the shock that followed. I moved out to give her space, hoping she would reconsider, and asked her to inform me if she decided to file for divorce. She assured me she would hand me the papers in person.
Instead, after dropping our son off at school one Thursday, I was met by an armed Sheriff at my door. The divorce papers were saddening, but the accompanying restraining order—falsely accusing me of things that never happened and preventing me from seeing our son for almost two weeks—left me in complete shock. The rest of the day was spent managing my physical reactions and disbelief. Our son was caught in the crossfire of a legal system more focused on creating winners and losers than on protecting children’s well-being. The real damage was done by a law that prevented the judge from ordering what was best for our child: joint decision-making custody.
Imagine being stripped of your voice in your child’s life, not because of any wrongdoing on your part, but because of a law that doesn’t allow judges the flexibility to do what’s right. That’s the reality I’ve faced since my unwanted divorce—an uphill battle against a system that favors the primary caregiver, often the mother, without considering the full context of the situation. Oregon’s restrictive custody laws have not only denied me the ability to co-parent effectively but have also placed unnecessary stress on our son, who is caught in the middle.
2. The Unexpected Divorce: A Sudden Shift in My Life
The divorce began abruptly and unexpectedly, just after my wife obtained her U.S. citizenship. The emotional shock was compounded by the legal battles that quickly followed, beginning with a restraining order based on false accusations. The ease with which such orders can be obtained in Oregon highlights a deep bias in the system, one that favors one parent over the other without a thorough examination of the facts.
3. Restraining Orders and Legal Prejudices: The Battle Begins
Being falsely accused of terrible acts and subjected to a restraining order set the tone for what has become an ongoing legal struggle. The law in Oregon makes it all too easy for one parent to secure a restraining order without sufficient evidence, further skewing the process. Moreover, there are no consequences for making these false claims and harming children via this process, even when, as in my case, the order was eventually dismissed. Still, this had already caused significant damage to my reputation and my relationship with family and friends, strains which continue to this day.
4. Religious Freedom and Parental Rights: A Constitutional Conflict
About a month after my former wife met her new partner, she sent me a message stating that she didn’t want our son to attend the religious temple I’ve been regularly attending with him for about a year. We’ve been going nearly every Sunday, and our son has attended around 20 to 25 times in the year before this message. Her message, though not overtly insulting, was direct and assertive, claiming she had full authority over religious decisions and demanding that I stop taking him to the temple.
I didn’t respond immediately. Instead, I drafted a detailed letter to her lawyer that night, explaining why her demand was not only unreasonable but also a violation of my First Amendment rights. I edited and sent the letter the next day. To my disappointment, her lawyer reiterated the request a few weeks later, insisting again that I not take our son to the temple. My former wife repeated this demand a month or two later, but I’ve completely ignored it because it’s outside of her legal rights as a parent. Her demand directly infringes on my constitutional right to freely exercise my religion, and I expected her attorney to counsel her on this, but instead, her lawyer only escalated the situation.
This is yet another example of how the Oregon family law system has made things worse. By granting sole decision-making power to one parent without adequate oversight, the law has effectively allowed decisions that may not be in the best interest of the child or respectful of the other parent’s rights.
5. Oregon’s Law: How It Ties Judges’ Hands
Oregon’s prohibition on judges ordering joint custody unless both parents agree is a unique and deeply flawed policy. In most states, judges have the discretion to order joint custody if it is in the best interest of the child, even if one parent objects. However, in Oregon, the law ties the judge’s hands, forcing them to choose one parent as the sole legal custodian, often the primary caregiver, without considering the broader context or the long-term implications for the child. Worse, the law favors the past, not the future. Which direction do children grow, especially young children like our son? Backwards? No: if the law continues to force the judge to give one parent more decision-making authority, it should look towards the future, with a strong preference for the older, more experienced parent. Again, however, the ideal would be mimicking the law in other states and allowing judges to order joint custody.
This rigid approach not only denies the other parent a fair role in decision-making but also exacerbates the conflict between parents. In my case, the judge clearly recognized that I should be involved in major decisions concerning our child’s life, but because of the law, she was unable to order joint custody. Instead, my former wife was given full decision-making authority, which has only worsened the situation, leading to more stress, more court battles, and less stability for our child.
6. The Breakdown of Respect and Communication Post-Divorce
Since the divorce, any remaining respect and cordiality from my former wife have all but vanished. Previously, she would at least respond to some of my communications, but now, she responds even less, withholding basic details about our child’s life during his five-day stretches with her. She no longer collaborates with me on decisions concerning his well-being, nor does she share photos, consistent with the lack of information she has shared over the past two years. It’s clear that she’s been sharing only partial truths—especially with her new partner.
Most people would agree that when a new partner enters the picture, particularly in a situation involving children, open communication between the parents is essential. This should include notice of dating, introductions, and the progression to serious relationships, moving in together, and eventually, pregnancy or remarriage. Instead, she gave me—and our son—a mere one-week notice before moving in with her partner “to start a new family,” without any prior indication that she was even dating. This rushed decision was not only inconsiderate of my feelings but also blatantly immature and unsettling for our child, who, during his time with me, remains in the same stable home where he was born.
7. International Travel: The Dangers of Unilateral Decisions
The other issue is international travel. The judge in our case didn’t include any provisions about international travel in the final judgment, despite our family’s dual citizenship and history of traveling between continents. We had traveled to Colombia in the past, and it’s foreseeable that we would do so again in the future. However, the judge failed to address this in the judgment, a mistake several Oregon attorneys have described as judicial (aka professional) laziness. Without clear guidelines in place, my former wife has taken advantage of the situation.
For example, I reached out to her in March of this year to discuss our son’s passport, which she had confiscated illegally two years ago, before the divorce proceedings began. She had previously prevented me from taking our son on a 5-hour drive to Canada in both 2023 and 2024, making for a comfortable summer week that was unnecessarily thwarted by her lack of cooperation and respect. Despite coming to an agreement via email with her lawyer about notifying each other of international travel and exchanging the passport, my former wife has continued to withhold the passport. Worse, she likely applied for and obtained a new passport without notifying me or obtaining authorization. She also gave both father and son only 45 hours’ notice before departure on a surprise international trip. Obviously, I have reason to believe she had purchased the tickets months in advance but withheld this information from both me and our son, and continues to withhold basic information about the trip.
This situation further demonstrates how forcing the judge to designate a sole decision-maker has led to unilateral decisions that disregard my parental rights and the need for cooperative co-parenting.
8. Misunderstandings Among Family and Friends: Public Perception Problems
The misunderstandings caused by Oregon’s custody laws extend beyond the courtroom and into the general public. Friends, family, and even acquaintances who hear that my former wife has “full legal custody” often assume that I am either an unfit parent or that I hardly see our child. This couldn’t be further from the truth. The custody evaluator recognized that we are both good parents and recommended a 50/50 parenting time split. The judge acknowledged this and ordered equal parenting time, yet the public perception remains skewed because of the legal terminology.
When people hear “sole legal custody,” they often jump to the conclusion that the other parent must be abusive or negligent, which is far from the case here. This misinterpretation has even caused confusion within my own family, with one sibling mistakenly believing for months that my former wife was “letting” me spend time with our child. In reality, the court order reflects equal parenting time, but the legal framework in Oregon creates a situation where the narrative is easily twisted, causing unnecessary strain on relationships and further isolating the non-custodial parent.
9. The Impact on Our Son: Stress, Instability, and Misinformation
The consequences of Oregon’s custody laws are most deeply felt by our son. The stress and instability caused by the lack of joint custody have been profound. The delays in getting our child into play therapy, for example, are a direct result of my former wife’s refusal to collaborate. Despite the court’s order for play therapy in December 2023, it took until mid-2024 for any meaningful progress to be made, with my former wife rejecting every single therapist I suggested. When we finally found a therapist we both agreed on, that professional withdrew after just one session, citing family conflict—conflict largely fueled by false accusations of domestic violence made by my former wife. The therapist suspected the truth but didn’t want the risk of being pulled into court. Professional withdrawal is common when one parent refuses to work with the other, harming our children, and the Oregon law only makes the situation worse.
This kind of obstruction not only delays our son’s emotional healing but also adds to the overall stress and tension in his life. A law that forces one parent to hold all the decision-making power without room for joint custody exacerbates these issues, creating a toxic environment that is far from the stability and peace our son needs.
10. The Risks to Our Son’s Well-being: Medical Decisions and Beyond
The challenges extend beyond play therapy to medical decisions as well. With our child’s clinic closing down, I am deeply concerned that my former wife will unilaterally choose a new primary care provider (PCP) without my input. I’ve always been proactive in our son’s healthcare, supporting the search for midwives and a home birth, finding his first clinic, and building a strong relationship with his current family nurse practitioner. However, my former wife’s tendency to distance herself from anything associated with me, combined with her new legal authority, means that I may have no say in who cares for our child moving forward.
This is particularly worrying given the potential for her to choose a practitioner who might not align with our child’s needs or our family’s health philosophy. With my background in biology and health coaching, I am well-equipped to contribute to these decisions, but the current law leaves me sidelined, increasing the risk of inappropriate medical choices being made without my consent.
11. This Essay Doesn’t Cover Everything: But Here’s Why It Matters
This essay doesn’t even cover my personal experiences navigating bias and conflict with my son’s school, where his mother, now a staff member, has influenced school employees and other parents against me. Nor does it delve into other painful episodes, such as estrangement from family on both biological sides, continued violations of our judgment, and numerous other issues. These violations include undermining my role as a parent in front of our son, bringing individuals to exchanges who contribute to a hostile environment, disregarding agreed-upon video calls, withholding parenting time, and more. But this essay isn’t about societal sexism against fathers, nor is it about my personal story and pain; it’s about righting the injustice of Oregon’s law. The focus must remain on how this law fails to protect the best interests of children and why it needs to change.
12. The Broader Implications: Why Oregon Needs Reform
Oregon’s custody laws are outdated and out of touch with the realities of modern parenting. By preventing judges from ordering joint custody, we are not protecting our children; we are harming them. The law fails to recognize that both parents, regardless of their past roles as primary caregivers, have valuable contributions to make to their child’s upbringing. In an era where shared parenting is increasingly recognized as beneficial for children, Oregon’s law stands as a barrier to what’s best for families.
13. A Call to Action: Reforming Oregon’s Custody Laws
The law should exist to protect our children and ensure that both parents are given a fair chance to be part of their lives. In my case, the prohibition against joint custody has done the opposite. It’s time for Oregon to join the majority of states that allow judges to order joint custody, giving them the tools they need to make decisions that truly serve the best interests of the child. My story is just one example, but it’s a powerful reminder that when the law ties the hands of our judges, it’s our children who suffer most.
Oregon’s current custody laws must change. The state must allow judges the discretion to order joint custody when it’s in the best interest of the child, just as the majority of other states do. Our children deserve better, and it’s up to us to make sure they get it.
Editor’s Note: This essay was developed and refined with the assistance of ChatGPT, an AI language model by OpenAI. The process involved collaborative drafting, where I provided input — mostly voice-to-text — on personal experiences and legal arguments, and ChatGPT helped organize, edit, and enhance the content for clarity and impact. I reviewed several times and made final edits. Contrast this with the adjacent essay on fatherhood, From Roots to Branches: A Father’s Perspective on Life, Decision-Making, and Leadership, which was drafted on pen and relied mostly on human editing.
Names and identifying details have been removed to protect privacy.