Why I’m Challenging Three Oregon Laws—in Plain English
The Big Picture
I’ve filed three facial constitutional challenges in federal court to fix Oregon laws that harm families and violate fundamental rights. This page explains—in plain language—what each case is about, where it stands, and what to expect next.
Case 1 — Joint Custody Veto (ORS 107.169(3))
What the law does: Since 1987, Oregon bars judges from ordering joint legal custody unless both parents agree. That gives either parent a veto—even when both are “fit”. A ‘fit parent’ is simply a parent who can safely care for their child—someone not abusive, neglectful, or proven unfit by a court—it’s a legal term that applies to ~95% of parents.
Why that’s unconstitutional: For over a century, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized parents’ fundamental rights to direct the care, custody, and control of their children (see Meyer (1923), Pierce (1925), Parham (1979), Troxel (2000)). In other words, the Supreme Court has said that “parental rights” are a fundamental civil right. Oregon’s one-size-fits-all veto strips judicial discretion and forces a custody fight instead of letting a judge order joint custody when appropriate.
What I’m asking the court to do: Declare the veto facially unconstitutional, restore judges’ ability to order joint custody for fit parents, and align Oregon with constitutional norms.
Status (as of Sept, 2025): In the Motion-to-Dismiss (MTD) → Response → Reply phase. I expect the case to proceed to summary judgment (SJ) once MTD is resolved.
Why it matters: The bond between parent and child is a fundamental civil right. Since 1987, Oregon law has denied that right to countless divorced parents and their children by blocking judges from ordering joint custody. This case is about restoring constitutional protections so that Oregonian parents are treated equally under the law, as the Constitution requires.
Case Details, Joint Custody / ORS 107.169(3) – Fial v. Cozine et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01474-IM (U.S. District Court, District of Oregon, Portland Division).
Case 2 — Secret Ex Parte Custody Orders (FAPA/temporary custody statutes)
Challenged statutes: Oregon statutes that allow ex parte (one-sided) temporary custody changes—e.g., ORS 107.718, 107.097, 107.139—without the ordinary due-process safeguards.
What the laws do: Allow “emergency,” one-party court orders that can change custody first, explain later. Even brief suspensions of due process can cause lasting damage to parent-child relationships, and permanent damage to adult reputations based on false allegations.
Why that’s unconstitutional: Due process is not a luxury—especially in parent-child matters. These statutes, on their face, authorize custody changes without timely, robust due-process protections and invite misuse.
Status: Complaint filed; Oregon’s MTD expected soon. This may become a high-profile merits debate about emergency court papers vs. first responders vs. due process.
Why it Matters: True emergencies can and should be handled by police/first responders. Courts still need constitutional guardrails—especially when altering parent-child relationships.
Case Details, Ex Parte Custody Statutes / ORS 107.718, 107.097, 107.139 – Fial v. Flynn et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01496-YY (District of Oregon).
Case 3 — Forced Property Taking in Divorce (ORS 107.105(1)(f))
What the law does: Oregon’s marital-property regime allows the state to take or reassign property (including premarital assets) through dissolution, often without the constitutional protections that govern government takings or clear, consistent standards.
Why that’s unconstitutional (facial challenge): The scheme violates Due Process and the Takings Clause by authorizing transfers not narrowly tailored and untethered from constitutional limits. It can punish one spouse simply for litigating or refusing to settle.
Status: Newly filed. Oregon’s MTD forthcoming.
Why it Matters: Divorce shouldn’t become a vehicle for unconstitutional property seizures.
Case Details, Marital Property / ORS 107.105(1)(f) – Fial v. Cozine et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01498-JR (District of Oregon).
What to expect next
Courts don’t set fixed deadlines for deciding motions, but public judiciary data and studies let us set reasonable ranges:
Motion to Dismiss (MTD): Federal studies report mean times around 2–6 months to decide Rule 12 motions, with wide variation by district. A national study by the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS) and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO) found an average ≈130 days across districts, with some courts faster (~63 days) and some slower (~176 days)(PDF available at https://www.uscourts.gov/file/document/iaals-civil-case-processing-federal-district-courts ) . Courts are also publicly accountable for motions that linger beyond six months under the Civil Justice Reform Act “six-month list.
Summary Judgment (if the judge agrees no discovery is needed): Federal studies put mean time to rule around ~5–6 months (≈166 days) on SJ, again with district-to-district variation. Many courts try to resolve dispositive motions within ~6 months to avoid CJRA reporting.
Overall disposition (no trial): AO statistics show federal civil cases resolved on the papers often conclude within ~1 to 1.5 years after filing (district/complexity dependent). Longer cases can run 2+ years; some move faster if fully decided on motions. (See AO C-5 tables for “Median Time from Filing to Disposition.”)
My plain-English projection (subject to the court’s schedule):
Case 1 (joint custody veto): MTD decision in ~3–6 months from full briefing; then summary judgment briefing/decision in another ~4–6 months if the court agrees that facts/discovery aren’t needed.
Cases 2 & 3 (ex parte; property): Expect 3–9 months for the MTD/pleadings phase, then—if they survive—~4–6 months for merits briefing/decision on summary judgment.
How I’ll keep this page updated
I’ll update the Status lines above after these milestones:
(1) MTD fully briefed → (2) MTD decision → (3) SJ fully briefed → (4) SJ decision and next steps.
A note on media & misinformation
These cases may draw attention—especially the ex parte challenge. Please read the actual filings and this page before forming an opinion. I’m challenging statutes, not seeking special treatment. The goal is fair, constitutional process that protects children and families.
Want updates?
Join our newsletter! I’ll also post brief blog updates linking back here at each milestone.