E.H. v. Byrne

“A brief period of consensual kissing” does not establish a “sexually intimate relationship” for the purposes of a sexual abuse protective order. Under ORS 163.765(1), whether a person reasonably fears for their personal safety is determined by examining the totality of the circumstances and does not require multiple contacts between the parties.

Byrne appealed the continuance of a sexual abuse protective order (SAPO) imposed against him. Byrne assigned error to the trial court’s continuation of the SAPO because E.H did not meet the requirements. On appeal, Byrne argued that he and E.H. were “family or household members” because they engaged in “consensual kissing” and that there was insufficient evidence that E.H. feared for her safety. “A brief period of consensual kissing” does not establish a “sexually intimate relationship” for the purposes of a sexual abuse protective order. Under ORS 163.765(1), whether a person reasonably fears for their personal safety is determined by examining the totality of the circumstances and does not require multiple contacts between the parties. The Court held that because the kissing was only brief, such actions could not give rise to a sexually intimate relationship. The Court reasoned that there was no evidence that the legislature intended a “sexually intimate relationship” to include such an interaction between “two people who just met.” Further, the Court reasoned that the legislature created SAPOs to be distinct from stalking protective orders and family abuse protective orders and, as such, SAPOs do not require “repeated incidents of unwanted contact” or “imminent danger of further abuse.” Affirmed.