invariably require that visitation be denied.” Harris v. Burns, 137 Or App 355, 359, 904 P2d 648 (1995), rev den, 322 Or 644 (1996). “Each case must be decided on its own merits and not on the basis of a policy not to allow children to visit their parents at the penitentiary.” State ex rel Juv. v. Clampitt/Hale, 18 Or App 12, 16, 523 P2d 594 (1974). Further, we note that the trial judge, in his concluding remarks, indicated that he was going to “take [himself] out of it” and let husband “make the decision for what’s going to be in his best interest.” It is the court’s task, not husband’s, to develop a parenting plan, including appropriate quality-parenting time, in the best interests of the children. See ORS 107.105(1)(b); see also Hickam and Hickam, 223 Or App 302, 196 P3d 63 (2008) (<HOLDING>). Reversed and remanded. 1 ORS 107.105(1)(b)
holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error holding that where the appellant has failed to demonstrate error the court is not required to search the record for an error holding that omission was not plain error holding that it was plain error for the trial court to establish a schedule of parenting time without making findings as required by ors 1071051b and instead leaving the matter to a parenting coordinator and exercising discretion to correct the error holding that a trial court does not commit plain error unless the error is clear under current law