K.E.B. v. Bradley

"In sum, to renew a FAPA restraining order, it is no longer necessary for the trial court to find an ‘imminent danger of further abuse.’”

Petitioner had a Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) restraining order against Respondent, which had been renewed previously five times. See ORS 107.700-735. The trial court denied renewal in 2021, due to lack of evidence of “imminent danger.” Petitioner assigned error to the trial court’s misapplication of the renewal standard, and alternatively, the Court of Appeal’s description of the standard was plainly wrong. See J. N. D. v. Dehkordi, 309 Or App 198, 203 (2021). “In sum, to renew a FAPA restraining order, it is no longer necessary for the trial court to find an ‘imminent danger of further abuse.’” (Emphasis added). In a 2019 amendment to FAPA, the legislature “relaxed the requirements” in order for a FAPA restraining order to continue: requiring only that petitioners show they “reasonably fear[] for [their] safety.” N. F. M. v. Al Khalidi, 315 Or App 668, 669 n 1 (2021), rev den sub nom, M. v. Khalidi, 369 Or 504 (2022); ORS 107.716(3)(a)(B). Although the statutory text remained unchanged, the statutory context indicates the legislature’s intention to only apply the “imminent danger of further abuse” standard at the initial proceeding. See Farmers Ins. Co. v. Mowry, 350 Or 686, 693 (2011) (discussing statutory context). Vacated and remanded.