Court of Appeals Confirms Violations’ Role in Restraining Order Continuations

P.K.W. v. Stea­gall, 299 Or App 820 (2019) involved a push­back on a line of caselaw under the Fam­i­ly Abuse Pre­ven­tion Act that had estab­lished a dis­tinc­tion between actions tak­en while an abuser and a vic­tim lived togeth­er and the poten­tial for fur­ther abuse once they no longer cohab­i­tat­ed.  The Court of Appeals looked to the respondent’s pend­ing con­tempt mat­ters for alleged vio­la­tions of the tem­po­rary restrain­ing order to deter­mine that he posed an immi­nent threat of fur­ther abuse.  The Ore­gon courts have looked to evi­dence of repeat­ed behav­ior and post-sep­a­ra­tion behav­ior to deter­mine whether a respon­dent pos­es an immi­nent threat of fur­ther abuse against a restrain­ing order peti­tion­er.  This case fur­ther stands for the prospect that all recip­i­ents of a FAPA restrain­ing order must com­ply with the tem­po­rary order to avoid con­tempt charges and to avoid pro­vid­ing fur­ther evi­dence of the need for a restrain­ing order.