relationship. Oreg.Admin.Rule 412-30-028(1); see also Oreg.Rev.Stat. § 109.119(4) (defining parent-child relationship). The Mullinses admit that they have no such relationship. In these circumstances, the rules expressly divest grandparents of even the right to a hearing on the merits of their adoption petition. See Oreg.Admin.Rule 412-30-036(2). It is fair to say, then, that so far as state positive law is concerned, noncustodial grandparents have no more rights than strangers to the adoption of their grandchildren. Nothing in the common law is to the contrary. The Oregon courts have steadfastly refused to create a common law right of adoption on behalf of grandparents or any other blood relatives. See, e.g. Graham v. Children’s Servs. Div., 39 Or.App. 27, 591 P.2d 375, 377-79 (1979) (<HOLDING>); see also Cox v. Stayton, 273 Ark. 298, 619
holding that although the superior court clearly erred in finding certain statements of the wife to be false there was enough other evidence bearing on her credibility that it was highly improbable that the superior court would have assessed her credibility more favorably but for the errors recognizing under plain error review that the burden to show that substantial rights have been prejudiced is on the party that failed to raise the issue below and for an error to have affected substantial rights the error must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings holding that creditor lacked appellate standing to appeal order of bankruptcy court absent permission of bankruptcy court holding that grandparents have no rights superior to that of a nonrelative applying for permission to adopt holding that there was no right to appeal an order denying a motion for correction of judgment which was filed after delays for applying for new trial and appeal expired