Background
Petitioner obtained a stalking protective order under ORS 30.866 against respondent, his estranged father. Their history included domestic violence and excessive discipline during petitioner’s childhood, after which a dissolution judgment prohibited respondent from contacting petitioner unless petitioner initiated contact and allowed gifts only through designated intermediaries.
After petitioner moved out of state for university and tried to conceal his location, respondent mailed a package directly to his residence hall in November 2024. Petitioner, frightened that respondent had discovered where he lived, returned it marked “Please don’t send again.” On June 3, 2025, respondent appeared without notice at petitioner’s university, called his name, followed him through multiple rooms and hallways despite repeated requests to leave, and said that he could go where he wanted and would remain on and around campus.
The trial court found three qualifying contacts: mailing the package, traveling to the university and approaching petitioner outside the residence hall, and following petitioner into the cafeteria. Respondent appealed, arguing that the evidence did not establish the contacts required for an order and that the June 3 events constituted only one contact.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish at least two qualifying unwanted contacts within the statutory period. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the trial court’s disposition, the court concluded that respondent recklessly disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the package was unwanted. Petitioner had concealed his location, rejected earlier gifts, and had not initiated contact, while the prior judgment required gifts to be routed through an intermediary.
The court also held that petitioner was subjectively alarmed by the package and that his alarm was objectively reasonable in light of respondent’s prior violence, threats, and abuse. The June 3 conduct likewise qualified as an unwanted contact that could reasonably cause alarm. Because the package and the June 3 incident together satisfied the requirement of two qualifying contacts, the court assumed without deciding that the June 3 events constituted only one contact.
The absence of an express threat of imminent physical injury did not disqualify the conduct. In the context of the parties’ history, the contacts could reasonably cause petitioner to fear for his safety, supporting entry of a permanent stalking protective order.
Key Takeaways
- An apparently innocuous communication may constitute a qualifying stalking contact when the parties’ history makes the recipient’s alarm objectively reasonable.
- Evidence that a respondent knew of restrictions on contact, knew earlier gifts had been rejected, and bypassed a required intermediary can support a finding of reckless disregard that contact was unwanted.
- The court did not decide whether respondent’s actions on campus were one contact or multiple contacts because the mailed package and the June 3 incident supplied the required two contacts.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that Oregon courts evaluate alleged stalking contacts in the context of the parties’ full history, particularly prior abuse and restrictions on communication. Conduct need not contain an explicit threat to support an order when it reasonably causes fear for personal safety.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as that rule permits.