M.A.B. v. Buell

"The court’s task... [in protective order cases is]... to determine whether respondent continued to be a credible threat to petitioner’s physical safety and whether she was in imminent danger of further abuse from respondent. At its core, that task required the court to forecast the future by evaluating past conduct and discerning the likelihood that abuse would occur again: a calculation laden with the peril of uncertainty that is intrinsically human." P.K.W. v. Steagall, 299 Or App 820, 825 (2019).

Husband and Wife were a separated married couple. Alleging abuse, Wife filed a petition for a protective order from Husband. ORS 107.710. The trial court granted the petition over Husband’s objection. In this remanded appeal, Husband argued that there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that he is a “credible threat” to Wife’s safety because the parties are separated; and he has not had any contact with Wife, except mutual supervised encounters. Wife argued that Husband's abusive history, hostile manner to her, and past threats create a “credible threat.” "The court’s task... [in protective order cases is]... to determine whether respondent continued to be a credible threat to petitioner’s physical safety and whether she was in imminent danger of further abuse from respondent. At its core, that task required the court to forecast the future by evaluating past conduct and discerning the likelihood that abuse would occur again: a calculation laden with the peril of uncertainty that is intrinsically human." P.K.W. v. Steagall, 299 Or App 820, 825 (2019).  Under ORS 107.718(1), courts grant protective orders only if the petitioner evidences that (1) there was abuse “within 180 days preceding the filing of the petition,” (2) “there is an imminent danger of further abuse to the petitioner,” and (3) a “credible threat to the physical safety of the petitioner.” Although continued separation is “significant,” every case is weighed according to its unique merits. Here, the Court found that factor was negated by Husband’s death threat conditioned on separation. Because parties are in fact separated, Husband's continued hostility threat qualified as credible. Therefore, the Court held that Husband presented a “credible threat” sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements for a protective order. Affirmed.