Background
Odyne Odyne appealed a trial court order continuing a restraining order under Oregon’s Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA). She argued that the parties lacked the qualifying family or household relationship required by the statute and that the trial court violated her due process rights by failing to make required findings and excluding evidence.
Odyne had not raised either argument in the trial court, so the Court of Appeals limited its review to plain error. The petitioner did not appear on appeal. At the contested hearing, the petitioner testified that the parties had lived together in 2000, and the trial court credited that testimony.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not plainly err in finding a qualifying relationship. FAPA includes people who have cohabited, and, unlike the statutory provision for sexually intimate relationships, the cohabitation provision has no two-year time limit. The petitioner’s testimony that the parties had lived together was evidence sufficient to support the finding, and the trial court could rely on that testimony despite any inconsistency with the petition’s allegations.
The court also rejected Odyne’s undeveloped due process and procedural arguments. The trial court admitted the video she claimed had been excluded, committed no plain error in its other evidentiary rulings or credibility determinations, and expressly found by a preponderance of the evidence that abuse occurred within the preceding 180 days, that the petitioner reasonably feared for his physical safety, and that Odyne represented a credible threat to his safety. No additional findings were required. The court therefore affirmed the continuation of the restraining order.
Key Takeaways
- Prior cohabitation can establish a qualifying relationship under FAPA regardless of how long ago the parties lived together.
- Unpreserved challenges are reviewed only for plain error, which requires an obvious legal error apparent from the record.
- Witness testimony is evidence, and the trial court may resolve credibility disputes and rely on hearing testimony that differs from allegations in the petition.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies that FAPA’s definition of family or household members imposes no temporal limit on relationships based on cohabitation. It also illustrates the difficulty of obtaining reversal on unpreserved procedural or constitutional claims under plain-error review.
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as permitted by ORAP 10.30(1).