Background
Anthony Drummond, representing himself, appealed an order granting A. D. an ex parte restraining order under Oregon’s Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA), ORS 107.700 to 107.735. He also challenged the continuation of that order after a contested hearing.
Drummond disputed several aspects of the trial court’s ruling. Among other things, he argued that the court should not have continued the order as to the child he shares with A. D. and A. D.’s separate child because, in his view, there was no evidence that either child’s safety had been threatened.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed. Applying legal-error review and treating the trial court’s express and implied factual findings as binding when supported by any evidence, the court concluded that Drummond’s briefing and the record did not establish that the trial court had committed legal error.
The court explained that ORS 107.718(1) requires a court, when a petitioner makes the showings necessary for a FAPA order and requests temporary custody, to award temporary custody of the parties’ children to the petitioner or, at the petitioner’s request, to the respondent, subject to reasonable parenting time for the noncustodial parent. The trial court complied with that requirement, and FAPA did not require the additional trial-court findings Drummond sought. Because he identified no reversible error, the court affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- A FAPA order is reviewed for legal error, while supported express and implied factual findings bind the appellate court.
- ORS 107.718(1) directs the court to address temporary custody when the statutory prerequisites are met and the petitioner requests that relief.
- The Court of Appeals held that FAPA did not require additional findings concerning the children and that Drummond failed to establish reversible error.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that an appellant challenging a FAPA order must connect claimed defects to a legal error demonstrated by the briefing and record. Disagreement with the trial court’s resolution of factual issues is insufficient when evidence supports its express or implied findings.
The opinion also clarifies the temporary-custody relief contemplated by ORS 107.718(1). It is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as that rule permits.