Miley v. Miley, 335 P.3d 853

Respondent appeals a permanent stalking protective order (SPO) issued under ORS 163.738.
The court reviews the trial court’s factual findings for any evidence and legal conclusions for errors of law, not de novo.
Petitioner must prove repeated unwanted contacts causing reasonable, subjective apprehension for personal safety or that of a family/household member.
Evidence showed respondent, petitioner’s ex-husband, continued contact after separation, including letters, emails, and visits in Mt. Angel, with anonymous letters to petitioner's acquaintances.
There was no direct in-person threat, no violent history, and petitioner did not testify she feared for her safety; content appeared vindictive but non-threatening.
The record lacked evidence that the contacts caused petitioner to fear personal safety or that such fear was objectively reasonable; SPO reversed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for SPO	Delgado/ petitioner: repeated contacts caused apprehension for safety.	Respondent: contacts were non-threatening and did not create reasonable fear.	Evidence insufficient; SPO reversed.

Travis v. Strubel, 238 Or App 254 (2010) (standard of review for SPOs; not de novo)
Blastic v. Holm, 248 Or App 414 (2012) (requires objective reasonableness of fear)
Osborne v. Fadden, 225 Or App 431 (2009) (nonexpressive contacts; threats required for fear)
Sparks v. Deveny, 221 Or App 283 (2008) (no evidence of fear absent violence or threats)
Falkenstein v. Falkenstein, 236 Or App 445 (2010) (evidence-based SPO sufficiency; evidentiary record rule)
Jones v. Lindsey, 193 Or App 674 (2004) (evidentiary record parameters for SPOs)
Carter v. Bowman, 249 Or App 590 (2012) (SPO standards under ORS 163.738 and ORS 30.866)
Osborne v. Fadden, 225 Or App 431 (2009) (repeated citations must show fear impact)
State v. Rangel, 328 Or 294 (1999) (heightened expressive-contact standard applicability)