K. R. M. v. Baker

ORS 107.716(3)(a) provides that a court may continue a FAPA order if the court determines that: “(B) The petitioner reasonably fears for the petitioner’s physical safety” and ORS107.104(1)(b)(2) provides an exception to enforcing a stipulated agreement when enforcement “would clearly contravene public policy.”

 Respondent appealed a Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) restraining order. Respondent challenged the court’s order to continue the FAPA order after a stipulated agreement conditioned dismissal upon entry of a civil no-contact order. Respondent argued the court had authority to enforce the stipulated agreement in a similar manner to enforcing a contract. ORS 107.716(3)(a) provides that a court may continue a FAPA order if the court determines that: “(B) The petitioner reasonably fears for the petitioner’s physical safety” and ORS107.104(1)(b)(2) provides an exception to enforcing a stipulated agreement when enforcement “would clearly contravene public policy.” The Court found that the trial court made express factual and credibility findings that supported the continuance of the FAPA. The Court held that the trial court had the statutory authority to continue the FAPA. Affirmed.