PEC"-l!

ttr^-
tllif;1; ;;r'r'r
I "
loiio'l:9&.Hll'33
3 FILED
4
IN THE CIRCUIT COURTOF THE STATE OF OREGON
5
FOR THE COTJNTYOF MULTNOMAH
6
In the Matter of:
1006-66086
CaseNumber:
7
KAINE ANDREWHORMAN, RESPONSE
8
PETITIONER'S
Petitioner, RESPONDENT'S
REGAR-DING
9
and ti{ r;iiiiri*
10 r,ilJv
LYNN MO'IJI,TONHOR.}'{AN,
: .TEB.BJ I fr?01$
11 'itY
Respordent iN [qHi$[s!"SH i"lCW

to Respondent/Mother's
thismatedalin response Motion
Petitioner/Father
Provides

fo! Dismissal.
of Peter
in theNovember2 Declaration
l! the speciftcrepresentations
Beforeaddressing
RestrainingOrde!' oneimportant
IO Bunahin Supportof Motion to DismissMotion to Modify
has dismissedher requ€stfor
point needsto be broughtto the Cowt's attention Motier
no suppodingdocumentationto
18 parentingtime pursuantto ORCP54 That rule requires

t9 achievethe dismissalof an action.It states:

20 A Voluntary dismissal;effectthereof'
provisions
A(1) By plaintiff; by stipulatioD'Subjectto the
an action may be
of nde f)-O ana of uny ttutut" of this state'
(a) by lrtlng a
dismissedby the plaintiff without order of court
notice.onthe
noticeof dismissaiwith the court and servingsuch
oI tnal.lr no^
defendantnot lessthan five days prior to the day
(b) by filing a strpulailonor
counterclaimhas beenpleaded'or
annear{ i1 the
dismissalsignedby all iverse partieswho have
of ott*tttu:j);".
action. Unless otherwisestated in the ootice &EN6dLrp
-"*ffii-##-
","M
PageI - PETITIoNER'S
RESPoNSE "*'ffif,t?A6lJ*
 prejudice''exceptlhati
I stipulation,the dismissalis without -nouce
the merits when frled
of dismissaloperates at - uffi"utitn"opon
in any co'-rt of the United
2 by a plaintiff who t'^ o""Jiitt"ltt"a
againstthe saTe'lftt::^:it"-:r
Statesor of any stale an aotiot
3 ffiil; ;,litu 1s"{::im*iffni}ii
shall be without Prejuolce
:!",fi';;"1* ot dlsmlssar'
enterajudgment
4 unJ",'ut 'uutttiion'thecounshall

j
ri) ofthis section,an acu(
:;'fi
-4p)Bv-"g-"i"j#l#;,iliT,jil,xllJlj"j,il"Tff
and
bvtte
6 |iffi;" ;;;;;l'ae'*niJ'oi'tmr "'dered -co^una
as the oourt deemsproper'lr
;;;';h #t and ionditions
prior to"T'::*]""
counterclalmhasbeenpleadedby a defendant
7
d;{ffi;ilff "'l'J;of*n:ffi
defendantmay Proceeo
il,ifu'l'"tl'T,ihil
tnls
8 dismissal'a dismissalunder
tri"ii"i" i" trt":"agment
9 subsectionis without Prejudice'
hasbeen
a party simplv fites a notige of {ismissalif no counterclaim
10 Typically,
aiongwiiir iire
counterclaim has been pleaded' an orderofdismissalis required
11 pleaded.If a
wishesto dismissan
A party is not requred to justify th€reasonhe or she
11 noticeof dismissal.
to
is notablc because Mother's attomeyhasattacheda five-page"Declaration"
13 action, That
One canonly speculate why Motherhas
Notice ofDismissal
l4 whatshouldhavebecna simple
document
such a detailedDeclaration to an otherwiseshortand simple
15 attached
of Mother's
statementscontainedin the Declaration
16 Fathertakesgreatexceptionto the
than(a)
rthingmorerndn
i\ nolhing Mother'seffoi to le-characterize
l4'r,v'urr'
iawyer. Tirar Declaration, frarlly'
11 , . _. decisions;
,
justify own litigation and
(b) Mother's attempt to her
18 thingsalreadyin therecord;
Court
Father and his lawer for Mother's currentsituation The
19 (c) Morher'seffort to blame
to strikethe
Fatherhascontemplateda motion
20 file is no placefor suchstatements
n
lnstead, Father,s believes the Declarationof MotJrer'slawyer
.t1 Declalationftom the recold.
obvious
the allegatio ns of Mother's lawyer' andby couecting some
besthandledby rebutting

regardingthe law'
misstatements
Kiara'
beenmaried since2007 Theyhave onedaughtertogether'
24 The partieshave
"iT,"d#ffifl{l1Ti
RESPONSE
Page2 - PETITIONER'S
 aPetitionto
of Madage Petition'andobtained
1 age23 months.Fatherfiled a Dissolution
Kiarato
(FA?A Order) on June28' 2010 TheFAPA Ordergivescustodyof
2 PreventAbuse
betweenKiaraandher mother'
3 Fatherandprovidesfor no parentinglime
Kyron Fatheris currendy
4 Fatherhasorlechild trom a previousmarriage'
4' 2010'
any parent'sworst nightmare KyronhasbeenmissingsinceJune
5 experienoing
K1'ron's
information tlat leadshim to believeMother is responsiblefor
6 Fatherhasreceived

7 drsappearance
court has abatedthe dissolution caseuntil January6' 2011'
On Mother's motion, the
8
ard sought
caseremains active Mother flled a motionto modify theFAPA Order
9 The FAPA
for
wift Kiala Mothor never signed an affidavit in supportof her request
10 parenting time
flom her
tim€. Instead, she placed that issue b€forethe cout with a-Declaratlon
1l parenting
to haveregular and
That Declaration made generalassertionsaboutKiaja's need
attorney.
containednone
contact with her mother' and Kiara's bestinterests Motller:s motion
IJ flequent
typically recelves
information, beyond legal a]td t'actualconclusious'that the Coult
t4 ofthe
bestinterests'
considering what type ofpdenting time mayor may not bein a child's
l5 wheu
parentingtime between
the word ofher attomeythat
16 Instead'Mother askedthis courtto take
Coud can
Mother wrongly assumedthat this
l7 Mother andKiara is in Kiara's bestinterest'
past
determination without complete informationconcemjngMother's
18 makea parentingtime
and mental
physical,psychological,psychiatric,
19 conduct,character,family relations,and

20 health.
l Amendment
shehasnot yet invokedher Fif
11 Mother hasnot yet takenthe standand
the court that
Mother's civil attomeyadvised
right againstself-incriminalion' lnstead'
will not
to invoke her privilege againstself-incriminationandthat Mother
Mother irret?ds
Court that Mother
Mother's atlomey informedthe
testifi at a// in suppodofher mot1on'
Ca[dC, Eq.lM & FNG4 Lf,P

*'g#trsl3-+tr-
tufkoNE For) 2!16
Page3 - PETITIONER'SRESPONSE
 is
quashcertaindiscovery on the groundsthat the information
subpoenas
1 would seekto

prolecledby Mother'stighl againstself-incrimjnalio-1

any
speaking, the privilege against self-incriminationprohibits compelling
Generally
subject
infonration of a testlmonial naturethat might directly or indilectly
I personto disclose
SCt2341' 101
criminal liability Doev United States'4871J5201'212'108
the personto a
statements"' which are
The privilege applies to "incriminatirg
6 L Ed 2d 1840988).
prosecuuon'
tlat might fimish a link in ilre chainof evidenoein a criminal
1 corrununiaations
Thereis no
States, 340 US 159' 161".1S Ct223'gSLEd 1700950)
8 Blauv, United
Terutesco'
Amendme[t dght to rcfuse to testifi in non'criminalproceedings
9 blar*et Fifth
pdvilegedoesnotapply
144Ga App 45'240SE 2d586(19?7)The
1C lllg lEgegt
subjeui
prevent any ard all testimony without regardfor the contentor
1I "acrossthe board" to
thestand'but
right of a personunder theprivilegeis notsimplyoneto avoidtaking
1't Thebasic
regardingtheoffense for
befree fromcompelled testimonial self-incrimination
ratherone to
thedisgrace
against and
trial,as wellas others.lt providesnoprotection
L4 which he is on
disclosureof matterwhich'
15 practicalexcommunication ftom socictywhichmightresultfrom
Thep vilegedoesnot
16 underthecircumsiances, couldnotgrve seto criminalliability
' possibilitiql'
11 protectdgainstremoteandspeculative
A witnesscanbe
406 US 47 2,478,92 5 ct l6'./0'32Ll,d2d234' (1972)
18 Comm'n.,
is pedectly
a claim ofprivilege only if ajudgeis convincedthatit
19 compelledto testifudespite
of all the circumstances in the case'tlat the witnessis
2t clearfrom a carefulconsideratiol

2I mistaken,andthattleanswerscannotpossiblyhaveatendencytoincriminate.Hoffmanv.

US 4'7g,486,'71S Ct 814'95L Ed 1118(1951)'

UritedStates.341
against
self-incnmination
against does not establishan absoluteright
The privilege

and does not automaticallyprecludeself-incrimination'whether

24 being compelledto speak
6E/d6;liff*iiiNdlLP
'"'*S.'lSSg;T'-
ftLF@NE(tarzirt
Page4- PETITIONERS RESPONSE
 U s v Washington'
or in response to questionspui by govennne!$officials
I spontaneous
prohibiteveryelemenl
,, Ec"2d238(1977)'It doesnot
431U.S.181,97S.Cr.1814'52L
the constitlitiolul
to make inciminating admissions;
3 which may influencea c mrnal suspec!
and
the witness not be compelled to give self-incriminatingtestimony'
1 guarantyis only that
tolality ofthe circumstancas' the free will of the witnesswas
tlle testwhether,considering the

6 overbome ld
2 Declaration states:
7 Paragraph 15of Mother'sattomey'sNovember
to seekl-egul tutto'dJ:l'd^"
8 lMlotherwill nol grveup herrighl effofls to withho-lc-arr
itttlntt"a t""*"t tlth Kiara [Farher's]
parendng dmels comptetely c;ntraryto Kiara'sbe$ interesL"'
9 issuesregarding parenlmg
ffi*"u"i *a"t af Ai circumstances'
day'
i0 iime will needto wait until anothcr
custbdyatler
and'/orvw"'-r - the90-day
Mother intendsto rk
seek parentingtime
parenung runc 'ruvr
11 Obviously
daughter,Kiara,
Father, is
however, focused on protectingthe safetyofhis
abatementends'
Kyron's
his Kyron
son, Father Motherhasinformationconceming
believes
andfinding

l4 \'hercabouts.whileMothermaychoosenottopaficipat€inarrymeaningfulwayinthese
consequences'
15 proceedings, her silencewill notcomewithout
agamsr
doesnot forbidadverseinferences
16 This is a civil case TheFifth Amendment
evidenceoffered
' ' civil actions when the)'refilse to tesdry in lgsponseto probative
t'l partiesto

18 againstthem.Baxterv.?almigiano,425U's.308,318(1976).lnoregon,apresumption
it'
suppressed would be adverseto tbe party suppressing
19 existsthat evidencewillirlly
will ask
proceeds to a trial' and Mother still refusesto participate'Father
20 ORS40.135,lfthis
silence as ar admission regading Father's factual allegatlons
21 the Court to coDstrueMother's
civil litigants who have attemptedto rely upon t-heFifth
Otherjudsdictionshavesanctioned
questionsin oivil
to preventdiscovery requestsald/or refuseto answer
Amendment

24 proceedings.InsDarksv.sDarks.?68S.w.2d563(Mo'App.1989)thepetitionefinan
6aFdc;,TiigElf €!64 L/-P

"''**s'l'#g;tr""
'"T:*;tsf'f "
5 - pr11o\ERSREsPoNcE
paee
 andattolneyfees She
fbr tempomrymaiDtenance
actionfor dissolutionof nurriage filed
1

2 thenrefusedonself.incriminationgloundstoaoswellespondent.sinterogatoriesconcemlng
The tdal cowt
attemptedto kill the r€spondent
3 her rclationshipto a contuactkilier who
that tlle tdal court
appellatecourt reversed'holdilg
4 nonetlelessganted her rclief l he

5 abuseditsdisqetionbygranlinglelieftoconcealingpartywhiletlreconcealmentcoNnues'
a
in Hasenbuch v Haeenbuch'730 SW2d269(Mo App 1987)'
6 768S.W.2d at 567 Also,
grounds'
on self-incrimination
to
refused respondto questions
1 dissolutioncase,the petitioner
on her
his pleadingsand awardedmaintenancesupportto the respondent
8 The trial court struck

9 clossPetition.
thecourti::::::
advised 1:t.1-.:';,,.
t0 ow4qttomelhas
rhejiaalthalMotber's
ac o rs
volumes auout what Mothe; hasto hide An attomeyin a civii "
11 pleadtheFifth speaks
car
provisionsof ORCP 1 ?C' which providesthatbeforeMoth€r'sattorney
L2 boundby the
posilionis based
in support of a pleading'thatattorneycertifiesthatthe
submitana.rgument
suchinquiryas
infomation belief'formedafterthemakingof
al1d
l4 onreasoMble"knowledge,
will not speak
under the circumslances" Onecanonly inferthatMother
15 is reasonable
for Kyron'sdisappearance Until Mother
her testimony wil! leadto criminalliability
16 because
'fi' ' no other infcrenqesdrawn'
ddniesthd allegations;therecanbe
parenting
2010, Father filed a Response to Mother'smotionseeking
18 On October 25,
regardbg Mother's
Kiara. Father provided deta'ed factual supportfor his concerns
19 rime with
disappearance' andhis concerns regardingMother'smentalstate'
20 involvement in Kyron's
at issue'and
contained documentatron tiat placedMother's credibility
J1 Father's motion
followtng
with iosight into Mother's mentalstatein the daysandweeks
provided the Court
may have felt embarrassed by the evidencethat she
Kyron's disappearance.Whiie Mother
evidenceis relevaat
other things on her mjl1drather tJlanthe sealchfor Kyrolr' that
24 had
"ir,"##sffH:'
*'#:ti,lBHf'"
S RESPONSE
Page6-PETITIONER
 with
reiatedto the issueof whethet Mother is fit to haveanycontact
1 becauseit is directly
alreadyhadthe
in Fathel's Response was a surpriseto Mother' sinceMother
2 Kiara. Nothing
ulder the ptesent
in her possessiol By seeking visitation with this youngchild
3 text messages
regarding
Mother swung the ooor wide opento rcceiveFalher'sconcems
circumstances,
state'and credibiLity
5 Mother's fitless asa parent,her mental
while Mothei
on Octobet29 '2OlO lronically'
6 Mother repliedto Father'sResponse
and"inflame and
Father's October 25 fil1ngasan effort to "viliry Mother"
1 charactedzed
in The Oregontan
public opinion against Mother"' an "exclusive"storyappeared
8 poison
filing wasthat
regarding Mother's Octobor 29 Response'Thethust of Mother's
9 newspaper
mothor/child *l"tt*th:P; Mothu's Replywasremarkable'
l0 Frith-eris tylng to "sabotagelhe
ln any
for what it statod,but for what it omitted Mother failed to address'
1l rlot only
(b) Fathet'sbcliefthat
manner (a) Fathe!'s concems aboutMother'smentalstate;
11 substantive
ofhis son Kyron; (c) thehorific situationthatnow
Motheris involvedin $e disappearance
threatto
location; and (d) Father's beliefthatMotherposesa direct
t4 existsregardingKyrcn's
in
of the parties' daughter' Rather' Mother simply stated'"nothing [the
15 the safetyand welfare
which Mother
Father's allegations that thereare no conditionsupor
lo text messages]suppods
Mother'
With due respect to the experiencedattomeyrepresenting
l7 shouldseehei darrghter".

18 theevidenceprovidedbyFatherinhisResponsehasewrythingtadowitlrwhetrerMotler

t9 shouldseeKiara.

20 MotheralsoclaimsthatFathelhasimpropellyreferredtoevidencethatMotherhas
is not
tests Mother states "evidenc€ abouttheseallegedfailues
failed two polygraph
law ln
legal in
proceeding tlLisstate" Mother is mistakenaboutthe
admissiblein any
t.hecourtheld
314 Or 496' 508' 840 P2d683(1992)'a divorcecase'
Fromdahlv. Fromdahl,
mother's knowledge
that the husbandmay have failed a polygraphtest' andthe
24 that evidence
"T,I,#ffiflff*
Page? - PETITIONER'S RESPONSE
1 ofthoselesults,waselroneorrslyexcludedwherethemothersoughttointoducethoseresults
abusedtheir children'
2 ofher belieftlat the fatherhad sexually
to showthe reasonableness

3 TheNovember2DeclaEtionofMothel,sattomeyalsocontainsafullparagraph
in which shesetsforth a veryreasonable
4 refering to an "ORCP54 OfferofCompromise'
MotherclaimsthatFatherhas
5 proposalto resolveeveryissuein thedivorceproceeding"
respondbecause
untilNovember5 to respond, andstatesthatshedoesnot believeFatlerwill
6
of
anykind ofcompromiseor settlement
1 shebelievesFatherhasrefused"to evenentertain

8 anyissue".

is a civil rule tbatallowscivil litigantsto rccove!attolneyfeesandcosts

9 oRcP 54E
in
rcooverreliefin excessofthat offeled
-10 a{iera..!ialil onepalry lo tiie litigahoDfailsto

1l settlement.The rule Provides:

Iftlreofferisnotaccepteda.ndfliedwithinthetimepresoibed,itshallbe
giveoin eviden;eat trial a$dmay be
deemedwithdrawn,andsnarrnoli"-'ui-
frledwith the ,ou't ontyut" ti" na' b"en aaluai"atedon themerits
ajudgment
theclaimfailsto obtain more
I'ii"tiii':'ri 'iJ p"ttvasserting a case'thepafiv
14 ;;;;;i. il ih" otf"' to illow judgmentlD such
il; .ilt shall^ not recovircosts'-pr€vailing g"tty...t:*'
;H;; of theoffer' the
l5 disbursements, or utto^eyr"esini*rtd afterthedite ^but
of the pafiv
the ciaimwasasserted shallrecover
;il';;;il;il not includingprevailingparfy
16 asserting theclaim costsanoolsbursements'
offe
f""t, to-m tft" ti-" ol the serviceof the
11 cases'
this is a dissolution and
case ORCP54Edoesnot applyto dissolution
However,
18 g27(|ggg). Theso!,ders court explained:
v. Saunders.
Saunders 158o! App 601,975P2d
19
forrr; 9f relf-1ltom
Dissolution casescommoy nvolvea hostof differentthedet:lllT:*
20 theoartitioning or awta or'"ur ^ilJ"onal fropertv'to t:f '*"f
";;-ul"^*. "lll:f
ilHd;",h. ."r iJpoJiiln'or
"ti' "ppropriaie..parenring
otligations to pay childand
tl
esrablishmenr of husrs. andln" of
n Ufu'e'ood the varieties
soousal suppon. 'e' ttt" sup"tt cJtii' notea in a
o"te'minew:hi'bparr-v "pre-vailr'
,7
iii"ii""""'",iJ in"" tinatiit alm""uriio "l"-'L'"'
it isnotsurprising ful
actiol^'2g2o'" regard'
dissolution "'iiz"
drestatutes do not condition an awardof
,attomey-*:'
'prevallrnglt-i T*t;::";13
(]*' -j""*"
on one parry
proceedirg
dissolurion -requires
a determination
24 oRcP 54 E, on"" ulgli'iio iontutt'
107.105(l)(h).
"Ti+ffii;+;'**
*i'l?uil'iiiri;"
8- pErrrroNER's
pase RESPoNSE
 whether apaltv sucnd u'r"llili'11]i^-i"'ii-":Tils:::,':,'TI:
To embarl(on :f"T
1
"3'-*i:":"-1,.1
favorablejudgmenL" ""ft"#fl:ff"'"
\ariouscombinalions-01
*a"*mg rhe.extent to which "t "ttiU
z *""i1-r"qli,E
and supportawardsr::tlli-i.-*"
custody,visitation, propefiy olsribution'
or less "favorable"itos.*t. ii ;, it brief' an intrinsicalll.]1T:"ton
g doesnot apply to ploposed
determinatiotr....we concludetrri iiir6i's+
stipulateddissolutionjudgments"

is
5 caseis conirsing More conceming
Mother'slrseofORCP 54Ein a dissolution
6 of
of settlement negotiations into a court documgot Evidenae
Mother's introduction
7 ofa claimOEC
offelsis generally inadnissible to provethevalidityor invalidity
settlement
8 that Fatherhas
is "reasonable"and furtherclaims
404. Mother claimsher settlementdemand
introducing
9
any kind of comprolnise or settlementof any issues" By
to
refi.rsad "entefiain
l0 implymg publlcly srar I du "sxE2tile"
evidenceofher senlementdemand'and
11 demand
theactualtelmsofher settlement
Motherhasjustwaivedany ghtto keop
timo
Father will provide Mother with thebenefitofthe doubtat this
co!fidential.However,
13 that Mother has demanded in settlement Fathe!will
andwill not revealthe actualterms
to the
14
doesnot believe it is just andequitableto provide spousalsuppoft
simply statethat he
ll ofhis son'
for the disappearcnce
personhebelievesis responsible
16 2010'
Datedthis ? daYofNovember'
11

18 GEARINCRACKNERANDENGEL
LLP

19
-7/< -/
20 D v/ - -=,'.=rr
Laura E. Rackner.UStl 64Jz'u
BrettE.Engel,OSB952578
Of AttomeYsfor Petitioner

24
6E^d6 fiicrM a€vca Ll.P

'"TTtrff8-%T'^
cwHoNE (s03)22 en6
?ase 9 - PETITIONER'S RESPONSE
 CERTIFICATEOF SERVICE

of the foregoing Responseor'

true copy
l. Brett Ensel, do hercby certify that I served a
'itii'ris:il'?tliu#;a asfollows:
ilren'ewcH, unomevs ofrecord forRespondent'

PeterBunch StephenHouze
AttomeYat Law Attomey at Law
808SWThird Avenue 1211SWFifth Avenue
Suite570 Suite1240
Podland,Oregon 9'1204-2428 Poltland,Orcgon 97204

Faxr(503)961-1559 F axt(503)299'6428

mairing
-byDv ma''rs d furl,true,
aru', """
and*.*,;;i"h
** c"Pf,-h:i::I.'li^S-:ifi:i:*iT:,lrXi'l5T'iiilt
collect of the
enveloDe rncauure*'""
rothJaadress(eg
to
-nvelope, -'"'""
shownabov is/arethe lastknownofficeaddress(es)
""'' ^ s"ti"" utpottland'
1"-,{ nr6d^h
oregonnn
onrhedate
thedate
person(s), withtheUnitedsi"*io'iui
anddeposited
se1firth below.
at
tothePersonG)
1l -[-by nril,*",Td::'f:I:iv"j:::T:'rni:$"lerivcred
causinga
llste(
thepelson's(s')lastkno\ln aclclress
It

i#l:,,'::";1i1
;Hil;"J,1flT:"i':[ i'il':"il?ilt:
";iTil-lii"i"1f
","*iJ":"*11?,
onihedatesetforthbelow.
I4

15
ff ffi::l1t'l
:i"g'lffifi'Jj:T;Ji*,"ffi"*1H'"H','j,"4
;r"*, ^t1"?:"1'f;:iff at the time of serviceandthe
*^ operating
setforthbelow. Thereceivingru* r*iin"
16 wasproperlycompleted'
transmission
2010'
Datedthis ? daYof November,
ANDENGELLLP
GEARINGITACKNER
18

20
,l
k
BrettE. Engel,OSB952578
Of Attomeysfor Petitioner

camc, tuc&w 6 D{6aLLP

ftEPtsde 60, 2 ei 16
Page10- PETITIONER'SRESPONSE