M. A. B. v. Buell, 438 P.3d 465

Petitioner and respondent married in 2014 and have one young child; petitioner separated and moved to her parents’ home in July 2017.
Petitioner alleged two incidents of involuntary sex by respondent during the marriage, one occurring within 180 days before the FAPA petition.
After separation, contacts were limited to parenting-time transitions, texts/emails from respondent, occasional in-person appearances (e.g., at pediatrician, mediation), a single note left at petitioner’s parents’ home, and a glare/angry demeanor during exchanges.
In June 2017 respondent once told petitioner he would kill her and take the child if she left; he did not repeat that threat or take further violent steps after separation.
Petitioner obtained an ex parte FAPA restraining order; after a contested hearing the trial court continued the order, finding petitioner credible. Respondent appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioner proved she was in imminent danger of further abuse under FAPA	Petitioner argued past sexual assaults, the June threat, angry/stalking-like conduct (glare, circling car), and repeated communications show imminent danger	Respondent argued post-separation contacts were limited, no repeated threats or physical attempts after separation, and communications were not threats of bodily harm	Court held evidence was legally insufficient to prove imminent danger; reversed FAPA order

Kargol v. Kargol, 295 Or. App. 529 (discusses significance of changed relationship post-separation for FAPA imminent-danger analysis)
Valenti v. Ackley, 261 Or. App. 491 (held volatility that ended after parties ceased cohabiting undercut finding of imminent danger)
Hubbell v. Sanders, 245 Or. App. 321 (upheld FAPA where respondent’s persistent trespasses and obsession showed imminent danger)
Vanik-Burns v. Burns, 284 Or. App. 366 (text messages not threats of harm absent evidence they could reasonably be so construed)