C. J. P. v. Lempea

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Family Abuse Prevention Act
  • Date Filed: 08-15-2012
  • Case #: A147965
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Wollheim, J. for the Court; Schuman, P.J.; and Nakamoto, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Even if a petitioner makes subjective assertions of fear, a FAPA restraining order will not be upheld when there is insufficient evidence that the alleged conduct creates an imminent danger of further abuse and a credible threat to the physical safety of the petitioner.

Lempea appealed the continuation of a restraining order (RO) that C.J.P had against him. Lempea and C.J.P. lived together between March 2009 and December 2010. On January 4, 2011, C.J.P. requested, and was granted, an RO preventing Lempea from entering C.J.P.’s property. This RO was dismissed on January 13, 2011. On January 23, 2011, Lempea and his son arrived at C.J.P.’s property to get his things. C.J.P. refused him entry and called 9-1-1. On January 25, 2011, C.J.P. sought an ex parte RO under the Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA). On February 17, 2011, Clatsop County circuit court granted the RO extension. Lempea appealed the extension under FAPA, and contended that C.J.P. failed to present sufficient evidence to support the continuation. The Court of Appeals held that when there is insufficient evidence of further abuse or danger to physical safety, a FAPA restraining order will not be upheld. The only evidence presented by C.J.P. of past bodily harm was that, at one point, Lempea had “squished [her] in a doorway.” Thus, under the totality of the circumstances, the Court concluded that the trial court had erred in continuing the RO. Reversed.

Advanced Search