J.E.-S v. Shields

Under ORS 107.716(3)(a), the trial court may continue a FAPA order following a contested hearing after finding that (1) the respondent committed past abuse within 180 days of filing, (2) the petitioner reasonably fears for their physical safety, and (3) the respondent represents a credible threat to the petitioner’s physical safety or the physical safety of their children.

Respondent appealed a decision to continue a restraining order against him under the Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA). He argued that the trial court erred in finding him a credible threat to the petitioner’s physical safety. According to ORS 107.716(3)(a), a FAPA order can be continued if the court finds: (1) the respondent committed past abuse within 180 days of filing, (2) the petitioner reasonably fears for their physical safety, and (3) the respondent represents a credible threat to the petitioner’s physical safety or the physical safety of their children. The Court found that the respondent’s reliance on his relationship with the petitioner for legal residency indicated that their separation heightened the petitioner’s risk of further abuse. The Court reasoned that where there was a pattern of abuse related to respondent’s immigration issue, the immigration issue continued after the parties separated, and there was a volatile incident between the parties after they separated, the evidence was sufficient for the trial court to conclude that respondent represented a credible threat to petitioner’s physical safety. The Court held that the trial court did not err in finding the respondent to be a continuing threat to the petitioner’s physical safety and therefore affirmed the restraining order under FAPA.