I'm befuddled by the skepticism about an article in a mainstream newspaper -- with reporting done by four separate people. Four different journalists contributed to this piece and did a lot of reporting - it is time-consuming and not easy to track down so many different people and try to get a very convoluted story straight.
Also, it's a story on SM, Kyron and her/their family history -- *of course* the people quoted are going to be related to her and friends of hers. That's what professional journalists do to try to get the full picture of something; they go to people close to the situation and get information. Plus, everybody in the article is named -- there are *no* anonymous sources. Why would you go to a random person to comment on the SM? That doesn't make sense and doesn't lend credence to your story.
As someone mentioned before, information in the article is also available via public records or available via court records. They didn't gloss over anything; if they wanted it to be storybook, I'm guessing they would have omitted the bit about the DUI.
Just because the article doesn't seem to fit with what many people believe or want to believe, doesn't make it false or storybook. To me, it read like the Oregonian trying to dispel rumors and report on facts -- something this case has been short on since day one.