Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

344 Or. App. 155

Hasan v. Sullivan

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided October 8, 2025

This page is marked noindex.

Court of Appeals of Oregon · decided 2025-10-08

Affirmed · Decided 2025-10-08

No. 887               October 8, 2025           155

  This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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

                  Ryan Kenneth HASAN,
                   Petitioner-Respondent,
                              v.
               Elizabeth Mary SULLIVAN,
                   Respondent-Appellant.
              Multnomah County Circuit Court
                   15DR18601; A180696

  Patricia L. McGuire, Judge.
  Submitted September 11, 2025.
  Elizabeth Sullivan filed the brief pro se.
  No appearance for respondent.
  Before Joyce, Presiding Judge, Hellman, Judge, and
Armstrong, Judge.
  HELLMAN, J.
  Affirmed.
156                                       Hasan v. Sullivan

        HELLMAN, J.
        Mother, appearing pro se, appeals a supplemental
judgment from the trial court, which enforced a parenting
plan between mother and father by requiring mother to
obtain a counselor who could meet with her children and
father to address issues that were discouraging the children from participating in parenting time with father. The
supplemental judgment also recognized that a new, longdistance plan would need to be put into place at a future
modification hearing.
         While mother’s brief identifies several disagreements with how the trial court conducted the hearing,
including disputes over the scope of cross-examination and
introduction of certain exhibits, and the trial judge’s attitude towards each of the parties during the hearing, including concerns with the limits the trial judge placed on mother’s presentation, the brief and the underlying record do not
establish that the trial court committed any legal error in
entering the supplemental judgement. Nor do the brief and
record identify any decision by the trial court that was outside the permissible range of discretionary choices. Because
mother has not identified any reversible error, we affirm.
        Affirmed.

/344/orapp/155 · .json · Public domain