On July 12, 2023, the Oregon Court of Appeals issued an important opinion in K.E.B. v. Bradley, 327 Or App 39 (2023), clarifying the legal standard for renewing a Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) restraining order — and in doing so, overruling a significant portion of its own prior precedent.
Petitioner had obtained a FAPA restraining order against respondent in 2016. The order was renewed annually for five consecutive years, through 2021. In 2022, the trial court denied renewal. The court found that petitioner remained "very fearful" of respondent and that her fear was "objectively reasonable" — but denied renewal anyway, concluding that petitioner had not demonstrated "imminent danger of further abuse" as required by J.N.D. v. Dehkordi, 309 Or App 198 (2021). The trial court itself described this result as "confusing," noting that the legislature had recently removed the "imminent danger" requirement from a related stage of the FAPA process, but concluded it was bound to follow Dehkordi regardless.
Petitioner appealed, arguing that the trial court misapplied the renewal standard, or in the alternative, that Dehkordi was plainly wrong and should be overruled. The Court of Appeals agreed with her on the second point.
The Court Overruled Dehkordi on the Renewal Standard. The key to the Court's analysis was a 2019 legislative amendment to FAPA. Before that amendment, the requirements for a restraining order were the same at every stage of the process — initial issuance, continuation after a contested hearing, and renewal — and all required a finding of "imminent danger of further abuse." After the 2019 amendment, the legislature lowered the standard specifically for continuation of a restraining order after a contested hearing. Under ORS 107.716(3)(a), a restraining order can now be continued without a finding of imminent danger — the court need only find that (A) abuse occurred within the preceding 180 days (see ORS 107.710(1)), (B) the petitioner reasonably fears for her physical safety, and (C) the respondent represents a credible threat to her physical safety.
Dehkordi had relied on an older case, A.M.E. v. Biehler, 203 Or App 271 (2005), for the proposition that the renewal standard mirrors the initial-issuance standard — and therefore requires imminent danger. The Court of Appeals recognized that the 2019 amendment had effectively made that reasoning obsolete. The amendment created a statutory "step down" between the initial issuance standard and the continuation standard, and it would make no sense to require more for renewal than for continuation.
The Correct Renewal Standard. The renewal standard under ORS 107.725(1)(a) asks whether "[a] person in the petitioner's situation would reasonably fear further acts of abuse by the respondent if the order is not renewed." ORS 107.725(2) further provides that renewal does not require a showing that any further act of abuse has actually occurred. After K.E.B. v. Bradley, that standard stands on its own — without any implied requirement of imminent danger.
The Court vacated the order dismissing petitioner's restraining order and remanded to the trial court for a new renewal proceeding under the correct legal standard.
The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded, overruling Dehkordi insofar as it required "imminent danger of further abuse" to renew a FAPA restraining order. The decision corrects a significant error and aligns the renewal standard with the legislature's 2019 intent: a petitioner who reasonably fears further abuse is entitled to have that fear taken seriously — even without proof that harm is imminent. For victims seeking to maintain long-term protection, this is a meaningful clarification of the law. For a related discussion of what evidence is required to support a FAPA restraining order at the outset, see our earlier update on TK v. Stutzman.