Background
M. Q. obtained an ex parte restraining order against Danni Mar under Oregon’s Family Abuse Prevention Act after their relationship ended. M. Q. testified that Mar came to her home on July 16, 2025, entered after she opened the door, and resisted her efforts to make him leave. She eventually pushed the door closed and locked it, and she experienced difficulty walking for three days from the effort.
Mar later sent M. Q. numerous messages, but she acknowledged that none threatened physical harm and characterized them as attempts to see her. The parties also communicated to resolve shared accounts and finances. Mar did not return to her home or attempt to be physically present with her after July 16, and his final email before the order issued said that he would honor her request for no further contact. After a contested hearing, the trial court found that Mar had committed abuse, that M. Q. reasonably feared for her safety, and that Mar posed a credible threat, and it continued the restraining order.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals held that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that Mar posed a credible threat to M. Q.’s physical safety, as required to continue a FAPA order under ORS 107.716(3)(a)(C). The court emphasized that Mar neither returned to M. Q.’s home nor threatened to do so after the July 16 incident, and that his messages contained no threats of physical harm.
Because the credible-threat requirement was not satisfied, the court reversed the order continuing the restraining order. It did not decide Mar’s separate challenge to the original ex parte issuance because reversal of the continuance required the trial court to cancel the FAPA order on remand, rendering that challenge moot.
Key Takeaways
- A FAPA order may be continued only if the respondent represents a credible threat to the petitioner’s physical safety.
- Repeated breakup-related communications, without threatening, abusive, or inappropriate content, did not establish a credible threat on this record.
- The appellate court reversed the continuance and directed that the restraining order be canceled on remand.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that evidence of past abuse and reasonable fear does not by itself satisfy every statutory requirement for continuing a FAPA order. Courts must have evidence supporting the separate finding that the respondent presently poses a credible threat to physical safety.
For practitioners, the opinion highlights the importance of evidence concerning post-incident conduct, including threats, attempts at renewed physical contact, and the content and timing of communications.