Background
Stuart Glen Iribarren appealed the renewal of a restraining order obtained by J. Y. L. C. under Oregon’s Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA). He argued that the trial court erred by finding that petitioner’s fear for her safety was objectively reasonable and by admitting evidence, relying on that evidence in assessing credibility, and failing to require proof of a continuing pattern of behavior.
The Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court’s legal conclusions for errors of law and was bound by supported findings of historical fact. It declined to conduct discretionary de novo review because respondent had not requested it and the case did not warrant that disfavored form of review.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the renewal. It held that respondent relied on the wrong statutory standard by invoking ORS 107.716(3), which governs contested hearings following the ex parte issuance of a FAPA order. Renewal is instead governed by ORS 107.725, which permits renewal when a person in the petitioner’s situation would reasonably fear further acts of abuse if the order were not renewed. The statute does not require a further act of abuse, and the fact that the parties no longer live together does not legally preclude a finding of reasonable fear.
The court also rejected respondent’s evidentiary challenges because he did not explain how the six identified rulings violated applicable evidentiary rules or case law, and the rulings did not otherwise appear erroneous. Respondent’s attorney had expressed satisfaction with the trial court’s handling of one challenged exchange, foreclosing a complaint on appeal. The court likewise rejected the derivative challenge to the credibility assessment and held that the asserted need for a continuing behavior pattern rested on the same incorrect legal standard and disregarded the trial court’s fact-finding role.
Key Takeaways
- Renewal of a FAPA restraining order is governed by ORS 107.725, not the standard applicable to a contested hearing following an ex parte order.
- A petitioner need not prove a further act of abuse or a continuing pattern of behavior to obtain renewal.
- An appellate evidentiary challenge must explain why each disputed ruling was erroneous under the applicable rules and authorities.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Oregon’s legislature relaxed the FAPA renewal standard in 2019. The central inquiry is whether a person in the petitioner’s situation would reasonably fear further abuse without renewal, even if the parties no longer live together and no additional abuse has occurred.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as that rule permits.