Rеspondent appeals from a judgment granting petitioner’s request for a permanent stalking protective order (SPO) against him under ORS 30.866.
Petitioner and respondent were involved in a three-year romantic relationship. Both were married to other people at the time. Petitioner ended the relationship, but the parties continued to have contact as friends. In late December 2013, petitioner ended the friendship by a written message instructing respondent to cease all contact with her. Notwithstanding that request, over the next few months, respondent continued to contact petitioner through emails, letters, text messages, and social media.
In April 2014, on Easter, petitioner discovered a bouquet of flowers on her doorstep, which she believed was from rеspondent. Although the flowers were unaccompanied by a card or message, petitioner testified that they were the exact bouquet of flowers that respondent had purchased for her during the course of their romantic relationship. In the meantime, respondent had created an online dаting profile that displayed approximately 16 photographs of places where petitioner and respondent had planted daffodils and
In early August 2014, petitiоner learned that respondent had accepted a job in the same city as she and that respondent was moving there without his family.
On October 7, 2014, petitioner was at a Starbucks when respondent got in line behind her. The parties made eye contact; respondent said “hello my friend” and told petitioner, “You look good” and “It’s good to see you.” Petitioner was unresponsive at first but then asked respondent if he was happy that he had stripped away everything in her life. Respondent answered, “No, I’m not happy, you know I’m not happy. You know I don’t have what I want.” Respondent offered to buy petitioner’s coffee, and petitioner declined. Petitioner left, and respondent followed her out to the parking lot to continue the conversation. He repeatedly stated that he was “not happy” and did not have what he wanted. At onе point, when the car parked next to petitioner began to back out, respondent grabbed petitioner’s arm and told her to be careful. Petitioner yelled at respondent to get away; respondent put his hands up and stepped back.
Several days later, on the morning of October 13, 2014, petitiоner arrived at Starbucks with her son. It was petitioner’s birthday. Respondent was there, sitting at a table by himself. Although petitioner’s son had waved to respondent, respondent left without making contact with petitioner or her son. On her way out, petitioner noticed an envelope and a bag of coffee on а stool next to the door; her name was written on the envelope multiple times in different handwriting. Inside was a birthday card that had been signed by employees from multiple Starbucks locations.
At the hearing on her petition, petitioner, representing herself, testified that she felt “endangered” and “invaded” by respondent’s behavior. In response to the trial court’s query about what she was afraid of, petitioner explained:
“I’m afraid that one day his obsession will peak. That if he can’t have me, nobody else will. It’s I don’t understand how it’s been this long and he still does this. I — I don’t know if he would hurt me, or if he would just take me, or if he would just hurt somebody that was close to me. I don’t know, but I know I can’t live like this anymore.”
Petitioner also testified that, although respondent had never threatened her, she believed that he was nevertheless “capable” of hurting her:
“[PETITIONER]: I think it would be easier for all of us if [I] could sit here and say he threatened me, or he did this, or he did this. Has he outright * * * threatenеd me? No. * * * If I had the black and white case to sit there and say yes he threatened to do this to me on this day, no. But being in the relationship with a man for three years I know what he’s capable of. I know when he looks at me and says,you know, T don’t have what I want. You know what I want.’ It’s not something that I can put tangibly in front of you, except I know after three years what that is.
“THE COURT: What is that?
“[PETITIONER]: That is I will stay on this trail until you remember that we’re supposed to be together. And I honestly just think that until I’m with him, that he will continue this until he hurts me or somebody close to me to get my attention.”
At the conclusion of that hearing, the trial court granted petitioner’s request for a permanent SPO. The triаl court found that respondent had engaged in multiple unwanted “contacts” with petitioner and that petitioner was subjectively alarmed or coerced as a result of those contacts.
“In this case, unwanted sexual relationship by definition is a danger to one’s personal safety. And in this case, the respondent’s pursuit of such [a] relationship with the petitioner is frankly relentless, and it is appearing to be escalating, culminating in this October 7th and then October 13th incidents.”
“When the sufficiency of the evidence supporting an SPO is challenged on appeal, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the trial court’s disposition and assess whether, when so viewed, the record is legally sufficient to permit that outcomе.” Van Hoesen v. Williams,
ORS 30.866(1), Oregon’s civil stalking statute, provides:
“(1) A person may bring a civil action in a circuit court for a court’s stalking protective order or for damages, or both, against a person if:
“(a) The person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly engages in rеpeated and unwanted contact with the other person or a member of that person’s immediate family or household thereby alarming or coercing the other person;
“(b) It is objectively reasonable for a person in the victim’s situation to have been alarmed or coerced by the cоntact; and
“(c) The repeated and unwanted contact causes the victim reasonable apprehension regarding the personal safety of the victim or a member of the victim’s immediate family or household.”
To obtain an SPO under ORS 30.866(1), a petitioner must prove, by a preponderance of thе evidence, that each requirement of that statute has been met. Miller v. Hoefer,
On appeal, respondent asserts several reasons why the evidence did not support the entry of the SPO.
Although petitioner testified that she was, in fact, afraid for her personal safety, “that apprehension, too, must be objectively reasonable.” Braude v. Braude,
To be sure, we have recognized that “conduct that might appear benign when viewed in isolation can take on a different character when viewed either in combination with or against the backdrop of one party’s aggressive behavior toward the other.” Braude,
In the absence of inherently threatening contacts, something more is required than merely “unsettling, unusual, or unpleasant” contact. See Huber v. Landolt,
In this case, although it is clear that respondent engaged in a series of unwelcome contacts with petitioner, there is no basis for concluding that respondent’s behavior would have caused petitioner to have an objectively reasonable fear for her personal safety. As noted, petitioner acknowlеdged that respondent’s contacts were nonthreatening. She cited a fear that respondent would eventually harm her because of what he “is capable of.” In the absence of any actual threatening contacts or a previous history of threats or violence, however, petitioner’s fear for her personal safety cannot be considered objectively reasonable for purposes of ORS 30.866.
Reversed.
Notes
In civil stalking cases, we ordinarily refer to the parties by their designation in the trial court. See Sparks v. Deveny, 221 Or App 283, 285 n 1,
At the SPO hearing, respondent denied that he had moved to be near petitioner and explained that the new job was a career opportunity accompanied by a large increase in pay.
Respondent had not signed the card himself.
The trial court also found that some of the incidents, including the letters, emails, text messages, and cards sent by respondent to petitioner were not qualifying contacts because they did not involve threаts to petitioner’s safety. See State v. Rangel,
Specifically, respondent argues that the trial court erred because the evidence does not show that he engaged in two or more unwanted contacts that caused objectively reasonable alarm to petitioner and that reasonably put her in fear for her personal safety. Petitioner made no appearance on appeal.