J. S. E. v. Cubic

It is a respondent’s burden to demonstrate “that the concerns that underlay the issuance of the original SPO have sufficiently abated that the order should be set aside.” Benaman v. Andrews, 213 Or App 467, 476, 162 P3d 280 (2007).

Respondent appeals an order that denied the respondent’s motion to terminate a stalking protective order (SPO). Responded argues that “(1) that he met his burden by the passage of time without SPO violation and his declaration that the desired no contact with petitioner and (2) that petitioner’s failure to offer any evidence at the hearing required dismissal.” When a motion to terminate is submitted to the court, the court must “focus on . . . whether the petitioner continues to suffer ‘reasonable apprehension’ regarding his or her personal safety due to the past acts of the respondent.” Carter v. Bowman, 249 Or App 590, 594, 277 P3d 634, rev den, 352 Or 377 (2012). Additionally, the respondent carries the burden to show “that the concerns that underlay the issuance of the original SPO have sufficiently abated that the order should be set aside.” Benaman v. Andrews, 213 Or App 467, 476, 162 P3d 280 (2007). In the case at hand, the respondent failed to address the concerns that accompanied the initial SPO and “why a four-year period of compliance with a legal mandate would sufficiently abate those concerns” both of which he had stipulated. Further, respondent did not make an effort to show that petitioner’s subjective apprehension was unreasonable nor did he provide an explaination as to how, after four years, the petitioner's viewing him as a threat had changed. AFFIRMED.