Background
A husband and wife filed reciprocal petitions for protective orders under Oregon’s Family Abuse Prevention Act. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the wife’s petition and denied the husband’s petition. The husband appealed only the order granting the wife’s petition, arguing that the evidence was legally insufficient.
The record showed that, during the parties’ approximately nine-year marriage, the husband had angry outbursts and, on occasion, punched, hit, and choked the wife. During a confrontation in April or May 2025, he accused her of infidelity, believed that another person had impregnated her, yelled in her face, lunged at her, repeatedly told her to kill her baby, and then punched a refrigerator in the next room.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the evidence permitted the trial court to find that the husband had recklessly placed the wife in fear of imminent bodily injury, which constitutes “abuse” under ORS 107.705(1)(b).
The evidence also permitted a finding that the husband posed a continuing threat to the wife’s safety. In particular, the trial court could find that his belief that another person had impregnated her enraged him in a way that created an ongoing danger.
Key Takeaways
- A person recklessly placing a spouse in fear of imminent bodily injury can constitute abuse under Oregon’s FAPA.
- A history of physical violence, combined with aggressive conduct during a recent confrontation, supported the protective order.
- The husband’s continuing anger over his belief that the wife was pregnant by another person supported a finding of an ongoing threat.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that Oregon courts may consider both the parties’ history and the circumstances surrounding a recent confrontation when determining whether abuse occurred and whether the respondent presents a continuing threat.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as permitted by ORAP 10.30(1).