M. D. O. v. Desantis

"Each contact 'must give rise to subjective alarm and that alarm must be objectively reasonably, and the contacts, cumulatively, must give rise to subjective apprehension regarding the petitioner's personal safety or the personal safety of a member of the petitioner's immediate family or household, and that apprehension must be objectively reasonably.'" Blastic v. Holm, 248 Or App 414, 418, 273 P3d 304 (2012).

Respondent appealed the trial court’s issuance of a stalking protective order (SPO) against him. Respondent assigned error to the trial court's finding that there were two qualifying contacts for the purposes of ORS 163.738. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in issuing a permanent SPO.  "Each contact 'must give rise to subjective alarm and that alarm must be objectively reasonably, and the contacts, cumulatively, must give rise to subjective apprehension regarding the petitioner's personal safety or the personal safety of a member of the petitioner's immediate family or household, and that apprehension must be objectively reasonably.'" Blastic v. Holm, 248 Or App 414, 418, 273 P3d 304 (2012). The Court held that the trial court did not err because given the parties’ tumultuous relationship, two qualifying contacts under ORS 163.738 did in fact occur and Petitioner's fears of immencent and serious violence were objectively reasonable. Affirmed.