Daley v. Daley, 380 P.3d 1226

Petitioner and respondent married in 2005, have one child; petitioner has a brain tumor and seizure history and takes medication for seizures and anxiety.
Longstanding marital conflict centered on petitioner’s drinking; petitioner entered but did not complete an alcohol program in 2014.
On April 7, 2015, after an escalating confrontation, respondent told petitioner to leave, used abusive language, came close to her, and made statements about her being poor and losing custody; petitioner left with the child and sought a FAPA restraining order.
Trial court issued an ex parte FAPA order, held a multi-session hearing, and ultimately found that April 7 constituted abuse (focusing on respondent’s raised voice, proximity, and that he “raised his hand”), then continued the FAPA order.
On appeal respondent challenged sufficiency of the evidence and argued the trial court’s finding that he “raised his hand” lacked evidentiary support; petitioner conceded no testimony supported the “raised his hand” finding but argued fear was otherwise proven.
The appellate court reviewed whether any evidence established the statutory requisites for a FAPA order and concluded the record lacked evidence of imminent danger of further abuse or a credible threat to petitioner’s physical safety.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supported continuing a FAPA restraining order	Petitioner: April 7 conduct (proximity, shouted insults, threats about poverty/custody, prior incidents) placed her in imminent fear of bodily harm and supports continuation	Respondent: Insufficient evidence of abuse that created imminent risk of further abuse or a credible threat to physical safety; trial court even relied on an unsupported finding (raised hand)	Reversed: evidence insufficient to show imminent danger of further abuse or a credible threat to physical safety, so FAPA order improperly continued
Whether a specific factual finding (respondent “raised his hand”) was supported by evidence	Petitioner: concedes no testimony supports that specific finding but argues other conduct suffices	Respondent: challenges reliance on that unsupported factual finding	Court noted lack of evidence for that specific finding and relied on the broader insufficiency of proof for imminent danger/credible threat

Patton v. Patton, 278 Or. App. 720 (2016) (standard for appellate review: whether any evidence establishes requisites for FAPA order)
Fielder v. Fielder, 211 Or. App. 688 (2007) (elements petitioner must prove for a FAPA order)
Maffey v. Muchka, 244 Or. App. 308 (2011) (abuse includes intentionally/knowingly/recklessly placing another in fear of imminent bodily injury)
Hannemann v. Anderson, 251 Or. App. 207 (2012) (FAPA order requires proof of imminent danger of further abuse and a credible threat)
Hubbell v. Sanders, 245 Or. App. 321 (2011) (examples where stalking/vandalism/obsessive conduct supported imminent danger and credible threat)
Lefebure v. Lefebure, 165 Or. App. 297 (2000) (erratic, intrusive, volatile behavior and expressed obsession can support imminent danger)
Poulalion v. Lempea, 251 Or. App. 656 (2012) (isolated incidents without threats or post-separation violence can be insufficient for imminent danger or credible threat)
Valenti v. Ackley, 261 Or. App. 491 (2014) (volatile past relationship insufficient to show imminent danger or credible threat once cohabitation ended)