M.D.D. v Alonso

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Family Abuse Prevention Act
  • Date Filed: 05-17-2017
  • Case #: A160408
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: DeHoog, J. for the Court; Sercombe, P.J.; & Flynn, J., pro tempore.

Under ORS 107.718(1), “a petitioner seeking a restraining order must present evidence to establish that [within 180 days after then incident) the respondent’s conduct created an imminent danger of further abuse and that the respondent was a credible threat to the physical safety of the petitioner.” Kelley v. Stutzman, 281 Or App 388, 391-92, (2016).

Respondent appealed from the trial court’s order granting Petitioner, under the Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA), ORS 107.700 to 107.735, the continuance of a restraining order against Respondent prohibiting contact with Petitioner.  Respondent assigned error to the trial court’s issuance of the FAPA restraining order. On appeal, Respondent argued that “the record does not support the trial court’s finding that abuse occurred.” Importantly, Respondent did not argue or present any evidence at trial that either the second or the third elements necessary for a FAPA order to be upheld were held in error. Under ORS 107.718(1), the standard of review for an appellate court reviewing a trial court’s continuance of a FAPA restraining order is “whether any evidence supports the court’s finding that abuse satisfying FAPA’s criteria occurred.” See Patton v. Patton, 278 Or App 720, 721, 377 P3d 657 (2016). In this case, Respondents arguments are based on the facts he disputes in this case were sufficiently creditable to find abuse occurred. Given the standard of review, the Court of Appeals declined to engage in any “reweighing of the evidence.” Affirmed.

Advanced Search

Back to Top