S.L.S. v. Tippery

“For the imminent-danger requirement to be met, the trial court had to make a finding—supported by evidence—that respondent is reasonably likely to abuse petitioner in the near future.” Hess v. Hess, 305 Or App 801, 806, P3d (2020).

Tippery appealed the trial court’s continuance on a Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) restraining order in favor of S.L.S. Tippery argued that there was insufficient evidence of imminent danger of future abuse or credible threat to S.L.S. The Court considered the “totality of the circumstances” when assessing whether the evidence found by the trial court was sufficient to support a finding of imminent danger. “For the imminent-danger requirement to be met, the trial court had to make a finding—supported by evidence—that respondent is reasonably likely to abuse petitioner in the near future.” Hess v. Hess, 305 Or App 801, 806, P3d (2020). Furthermore, the Court stated that a single act of abuse is enough to support the initial restraining order. However, the single act is not enough to support the continuance of one. Reversed.