Background

• Petitioner filed for a permanent stalking protective order (SPO) after a history of an intimate relationship (2008–2010) and escalating post-relationship contacts; a temporary SPO issued Sept. 7, 2012, and a permanent SPO was entered Feb. 20, 2013; respondent contests sufficiency of evidence under ORS 30.866(1); the court rejected credibility challenges and affirmed the SPO and attorney-fee award; de novo review was declined; the court emphasized two or more unwanted contacts in the prior two years as the key threshold.
• Petitioner testified to ongoing abuse and controlling conduct during the relationship, including blocking, following, and emotional/physical abuse, and to a pattern of contacts that later escalated in 2011–2012.
• Two qualifying nonexpressive contacts were identified: (1) March 13, 2012, where respondent threw a toy wagon at petitioner during a custody exchange and later stared at her, causing fear for the child; (2) April 2012, where respondent lunged and yelled during a custody exchange in front of petitioner’s home, with police presence arranged.
• The court treated expressive communications with caution under Rangel, but relied on nonexpressive conduct to satisfy ORS 30.866(1), considering the totality and the parties’ history of abuse to determine objective alarm.
• The appellate court affirmed the SPO, holding the record supported two or more qualifying contacts and the petitioner’s alarm was objectively reasonable; attorney fees were not reached because the SPO was affirmed.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Christensen v. Carter/ Bosket, 261 Or App 133 (2014) (two or more contacts, need for totality in assessing alarm and apprehension)
• Pinkham v. Brubaker, 178 Or App 360 (2001) (considering totality of circumstances for alarm and safety)
• Smith v. Di Marco, 207 Or App 558 (2006) (contextualization of contacts in light of history of abuse)
• Delgado v. Souders, 334 Or 122 (2002) (two elements and burden of proof for civil stalking actions)