P.M.H. v. Landolt

To satisfy ORS 30.866, it is not sufficient to prove that someone is in reasonable objective apprehension of their or their family’s personal safety when someone sends letters or gifts to a child through third parties at their school.

Landolt appealed a trial court judgment which placed him under a stalking protective order. The actions in question occurred in late 2011 and early 2012 when the petitioner was twelve and thirteen years of age. Petitioner was the biological daughter of the Landolt who had been adopted by her maternal parents and had never formed a relationship with the Landolt. Landolt sent gifts to petitioner through third parties at the girl’s school. There was also a child in petitioner’s class who delivered letters between Landolt and petitioner on several occasions. Petitioner had been told by her maternal grandparents, who are now her legal parents, that Landolt had abused her mother in the late 90s and used illegal substances. To impose a stalking protective order, the court must have found that Landolt had repeated unwanted contact with petitioner, petitioner was subjectively alarmed by the contact in an objectively reasonable way, the contacts must actually cause the petitioner apprehension about personal safety, and Landolt must have acted with the requisite mental state. The Court determined that the petitioner never tied her fear of the contacts to apprehension regarding her or her family’s personal safety and that there was no evidence that Landolt had acted in a manner which would cause a reasonable person to be in such a state of apprehension. Reversed.