No. 699 July 30, 2025 357
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
STATE OF OREGON
Tecla K. ARANGO,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
Edward PEREZ-PEREZ,
Respondent-Appellant.
Multnomah County Circuit Court
20DR00374; A176911
Amy Holmes Hehn, Judge.
Submitted June 4, 2025.
Edward Perez-Perez filed the brief pro se.
No appearance for respondent.
Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, Hellman, Judge, and
Armstrong, Senior Judge.
HELLMAN, J.
Affirmed.
358 Arango v. Perez-Perez
HELLMAN, J.
Father, appearing pro se in this domestic relations
case, appeals a general judgment that awarded mother sole
custody of their child and denied father parenting time. On
appeal, father raises three assignments of error. On the limited record available to us, we affirm.1
First assignment of error. Father argues that the
trial court “erred by failing to follow” its September 2020
order concerning mediation. That order stated that “[i]t
appears that the parties disagree about a custody or parenting time matter” and further provided:
“[U]nder Supplemental Local Rule 12.015 of the
Multnomah County Circuit Court … the parties shall
participate in mediation before a hearing occurs on the
issue of custody or parenting time. Failing to attend will
likely delay the hearing or trial date.”
The order further directed the parties to contact the
Multnomah County Family Court Services “[i]mmediately
to schedule for mediation.”
The record does not indicate that either party participated in mediation. Instead, the record includes a letter that father sent to the court in September 2020 titled
“Emergency COVID-19 protection declaration response in
support of order requiring mediation.” In that letter, father
requested mediation and identified the issues that he wanted
to mediate, including joint custody and medical expenses.
In July 2021, the trial court mailed father a “Notice
of Scheduled Remote Court Appearance” that stated that
trial assignment would occur on August 11, 2021, and that
trial would occur on August 12, 2021. The court held the
August 12, 2021, hearing and subsequently entered the general judgment that father challenges on appeal. The general
judgment acknowledged that father was incarcerated but
stated that he was “not present” at the hearing.
1
We observe that, although the July 2021 notice was addressed to father’s
correctional facility, the notice did not acknowledge the limitations that adults
in custody face with respect to accessing court proceedings. Father’s later challenges to the process included in a motion for relief from judgment (denied by the
trial court) were the subject of an untimely effort to amend his appeal, so the
record before us does not include materials relevant to that challenge.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 342 Or App 357 (2025) 359
On appeal, father argues that the trial court erred
by holding the hearing even though he had not participated
in mediation. Father cites no authority, and we have found
none, that prohibits a trial court from holding a hearing in a
domestic relations proceeding when a party does not comply
with the court’s mediation order. We conclude that the trial
court did not commit reversible error.
Second assignment of error. We understand father
to challenge the trial court’s decisions to hold the hearing in
his absence and to enter the general judgment.
The Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure “govern procedure and practice” in “all civil actions and special proceedings.” ORCP 1 A. As relevant here, ORCP 58 E provides:
“When a party who has filed an appearance fails to appear
for trial, the court may, in its discretion, proceed to trial
and judgment without further notice to the non-appearing
party.”
We conclude that the trial court acted within its discretion when it held the August 2021 hearing. Our review
is limited to the record on appeal, which “consists of those
parts of the trial court file, exhibits and record of oral proceedings in the trial court that are designated under ORS
19.250.” ORS 19.365.
Here, mother filed the petition for custody and
parenting time in January 2020. In August 2020, father
appeared by filing a response that opposed the petition. As
noted above, in July 2021, the trial court sent father a notice
that stated that trial assignment would occur on August 11,
2021, and that,
“[i]f you fail to appear at trial assignment on the date and
time stated above, you may lose your chance to participate
in the trial/hearing and therefore lose your case.”
(Uppercase omitted.) After the August 12, 2021, hearing,
the trial court entered the general judgment, which provided that father was “not present … [and] willfully failed
to appear.”
The record before us demonstrates that father had
appeared in 2020, that the trial court had provided him
360 Arango v. Perez-Perez
notice of the trial assignment, that the notice explained the
consequences if father failed to appear, and that father did
not appear at his trial assignment. On that record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in “proceed[ing] to trial and judgment.” ORCP 58 E.
Third assignment of error. We understand father to
argue that the trial court plainly “erred by denying Parental
authority-Parenting Plan/Parenting Time, to the non-custodial parent under ORS 109.119 and ORS 107.102, and ORS
107.137.”
“Generally, an issue not preserved in the trial
court will not be considered on appeal.” State v. Wyatt, 331
Or 335, 341,
15 P3d 22 (2000). We may review an unpreserved error when it is “plain.” State v. Vanornum,
354 Or
614, 629,
317 P3d 889 (2013). “For an error to be plain error,
it must be an error of law, obvious and not reasonably in
dispute, and apparent on the record without requiring [us]
to choose among competing inferences.”
Id. If we conclude
that “a claimed error was [plain] error,” we must “determine
whether to exercise [our] discretion to review the error.”
Id.
at 630.
We conclude that any error is not “apparent on the
record.” Here, the trial court entered the general judgment
awarding mother sole custody of child and found, in relevant
part, that father
“must not have parenting time because this would endanger the health and safety of the child. Currently incarcerated, convicted sex offender [with] child victim. Court took
judicial notice of [criminal case number].”
Further, the trial court suspended father’s authority under
ORS 107.154 “for good cause,” specifically, “[mother] and
child safety.”
Although father argues in his opening brief that
he “has maintained a healthy relationship and has been in
present” in child’s life for nearly seven years, father’s brief
is not evidence. See Jones v. Lindsey, 193 Or App 674, 677,
91 P3d 781 (2004) (concluding that “the evidentiary record
is limited to the evidence received at the contested hearing”); see also ORS 19.365 (defining the “record on appeal”
Nonprecedential Memo Op:
342 Or App 357 (2025) 361
as “those parts of the trial court file, exhibits and record
of oral proceedings in the trial court that are designated
under ORS 19.250”).2 Because father identifies no error that
is “apparent on the record,” we conclude that the trial court
did not plainly err. Vanornum,
354 Or at 629.
Affirmed.
2
The record indicates that father moved to waive ORAP 3.05(2), which provides, in relevant part, that “the record of oral proceedings shall be a transcript,”
and asked to proceed on the trial court file and exhibits. The appellate court
commissioner granted that motion
