## Facts

- The parties divorced in 1987; mother received custody of their three daughters, and father was ordered to pay $200 per month per child.
- In 1995, the court increased support to $239 per month for each minor child and $464 per month for the oldest daughter (age 18) while attending school.
- In 1997, mother moved to modify support for the second daughter after she turned 18 and planned to attend college, invoking ORS 107.108 (support for a “child attending school” ages 18–21).
- Father moved to dismiss, asserting ORS 107.108 unconstitutionally permits support orders against divorced or separated parents of 18–21-year-old students, but not against married parents of similarly situated children.
- The trial court agreed, held ORS 107.108 unconstitutional under Article I, section 20 of the Oregon Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment, and dismissed mother’s modification motion.
- Mother appealed the dismissal.

## Issues

1. Whether ORS 107.108 violates Article I, section 20 of the Oregon Constitution by granting a legal benefit to 18–21-year-old students whose parents are divorced or separated that is not available to similarly situated students whose parents are married.
2. Whether ORS 107.108 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by treating divorced or separated parents differently from married parents without a rational basis.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment dismissing mother’s motion and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held ORS 107.108 constitutional under both Article I, section 20 and the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The court concluded the trial court erred in finding no rational basis for the statute’s operation in dissolution-related proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Article I, section 20 prohibits unjustified grants of privileges or immunities to a prohibited “class,” but does not bar legislative distinctions that are tied to a valid regulatory scheme and are not arbitrary.
- ORS 107.108 operates within dissolution and related domestic-relations proceedings, where courts allocate custody and support obligations; limiting court-ordered post-majority student support to that context is a permissible legislative choice.
- Federal equal protection review is rational-basis where no suspect classification or fundamental right is implicated; a statute is valid if rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose.
- Providing a mechanism in dissolution-related cases to allocate support for children ages 18–21 who are attending school is a legitimate governmental purpose, and restricting that mechanism to families already before the court is rational.

## Conclusion

The court held that ORS 107.108 permissibly authorizes support orders for qualifying 18–21-year-old students in dissolution-related proceedings and does not violate state privileges-and-immunities or federal equal protection; the dismissal of the mother’s modification motion was reversed and the case remanded.


In re Marriage of Crocker, 157 Or. App. 651, 971 P.2d 469 (Or. Ct. App. 1998)