D.R.M. v. Woods

“Despite the lack of an explicit threat, the court may look at the totality of the circumstances to determine that a respondent has, with the requisite mental state, placed a petitioner in fear of imminent serious bodily injury and in immediate danger of further abuse.” Lefebvre v. Lefebvre, 165 Or App 297, 302, 996 P2d 518 (2000).

Respondent challenged the trial court’s decision to continue a restraining order against him pursuant to the Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA), ORS 107.700 to 107.732. Respondent assigned error to the trial court’s determination that one single telephone call provided sufficient evidence to constitute “abuse” within the meaning of ORS 107.705 and ORS 107.718. On appeal, Respondent argued that the statement he made in a telephone call should be understood only as an expression of regret. In response, Petitioner argued that the Court was to consider the totality of the circumstances and that the telephone call constituted a present threat of imminent bodily injury. “Despite the lack of an explicit threat, the court may look at the totality of the circumstances to determine that a respondent has, with the requisite mental state, placed a petitioner in fear of imminent serious bodily injury and immediate danger of further abuse.” Lefebvre v. Lefebvre, 165 Or App 297, 302, 996 P2d 518 (2000). The Court of Appeals held that with the Respondent’s recent statement evaluated as the totality of the circumstances, past and present, the trial court had sufficient evidence to conclude that Respondent’s statement intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly placed Petitioner in fear of imminent bodily injury. Affirmed.