New Case Law – Family Abuse Prevention Act Restraining Orders

On July 13, 2011, the Oregon Court of Appeals decided Maffey v. Muchka.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s continuance of a restraining order based on the petitioner’s testimony that the respondent threatened her and physically intimidated her and that she feared future abuse.  The respondent argued that petitioner had not established that he had abused her in the 180 days prior to petitioner filing for a restraining order.  The Court of Appeals, however, clarified that abuse, as defined by the Family Abuse Prevention Act, includes not only physically injuring a domestic partner, but also attempting to injure and causing the other person to fear imminent injury.  The Court of Appeals also found that the petitioner offered sufficient evidence of her fear of future abuse by testifying that respondent had engaged in a pattern of controlling and threatening behavior toward her which continued to escalate.

The entire opinion can be found here.

About Daniel Margolin

Daniel Margolin is a founding partner of Stephens & Margolin LLP and a Portland, Oregon native. His practice focuses on all aspects of family law litigation. Dan applies his litigation expertise to provide additional expertise when assisting clients with Family Law Appeals and Collaborative Divorce matters. To find out more or contact Daniel Margolin, visit Stephens & Margolin LLP
This entry was posted in Divorce, Domestic Violence. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to New Case Law – Family Abuse Prevention Act Restraining Orders

  1. Thanks for sharing the information with us. I am impressed by the blog and the way you have posted it, this is the good one.

  2. I think the Court of Appeals got this one right – so long as the victim reasonably fears for her safety, those feelings of fear, so long as they are reasonable, should give rise to the issuance of a restraining order.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *