January 21 to 23, 2025: Kyle’s Ex Parte Status Quo Motion

On January 21, 2025, Kyle dated a three-page Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Protective Status Quo Order and Declaration in Support. The Washington County Circuit Court filed the motion on January 23, 2025 in our pending domestic-relations case.

The filing identifies me as the petitioner and Kyle as the respondent. It states that a petition concerning custody and parenting time had been filed but that no general judgment had been entered.

Kyle asked the court to temporarily prohibit either parent from:

• Hiding the children from the other parent
• Interfering with the other parent’s usual contact and parenting time

He did not select the available provisions concerning changing the children’s residence, interfering with their daily schedule, leaving Oregon, or disturbing their current schedule and routine.

In the accompanying declaration, Kyle stated that the children had lived at the listed Tualatin address during the preceding six months. His description of their current communication stated that they had “unblocked access to email and text messaging and phone communication from both parents.”

The UCCJEA section reports that the children lived in Washington County from 2020 through 2024 and Multnomah County from 2017 through 2020. Kyle listed himself as the parent or caretaker for both periods.

Kyle also selected statements that he had not participated in another custody or parenting-time case, did not know of another proceeding that might affect the case, and did not know of anyone other than the other parent who had physical custody or claimed custody, visitation, or parenting-time rights.

The final page contains a declaration that the statements were true and complete to the best of the declarant’s knowledge and belief and were made for use in court subject to penalty for perjury. It bears the date January 21, 2025 and Kyle’s printed name.

This filing documents what Kyle requested and represented to the court. These three pages do not contain the resulting order and do not establish whether the court granted, denied, or modified his request. The motion itself is not a judicial finding that its factual statements were true.