J.D.K. v. W.T.F.

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Civil Stalking Protective Order
  • Date Filed: 02-18-2016
  • Case #: A158146
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Ortega, P.J.; Lagesen, J.; and Garrett, J., for the Court.

Under ORS 30.866, a petitioner for a civil stalking protective order must show that the petitioner has a reasonable fear for their safety as a result of at least two unwelcome contacts by the respondent.

Petitioner and Respondent were in a relationship for three years. Petitioner ended the relationship, and in 2013 requested to stop being friends. Respondent continued to contact Petitioner through email, letters, text, and social media. Petitioner received the same kind of flowers Respondent had purchased for her during their relationship with no note. Respondent visited Petitioner's dating profile nearly every day in April 2014 and September/October 2014. In August 2014, Respondent accepted a job in the same city as Petitioner and moved there without his family. Petitioner encountered Respondent multiple times at two Starbucks locations. On Petitioner's birthday, Petitioner saw Respondent at a Starbucks. When Petitioner left the store, she saw an envelope with her name on it and a bag of coffee near the door. Inside the envelope was a birthday card signed by multiple Starbucks employees. After these incidents, Petitioner petitioned for a permanent stalking protective order against Respondent. The trial court granted Petitioner's petition, finding that Respondent had engaged in multiple unwanted contacts with Petitioner, that, in light of the parties' past relationship, Petitioner felt alarmed and coerced, which caused her a reasonable fear for her safety. Respondent appealed, contending there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's decision. The Oregon Court of Appeals held that, while Respondent unwelcomely contacted Petitioner, Petitioner failed to show that she had an objectively reasonable fear for her safety because Respondent did not threaten her with violence and Respondent did not have a history of violence. Judgment reversed.

Advanced Search

Back to Top