107.710
Petition to circuit court for relief; burden of proof. (1) Any person who has been the
victim of abuse within the preceding 180 days may petition the circuit court
for relief under ORS 107.700 to 107.735, if the person is in imminent danger of
further abuse from the abuser. The person may seek relief by filing a petition
with the circuit court alleging that the person is in imminent danger of abuse
from the respondent, that the person has been the victim of abuse committed by
the respondent within the 180 days preceding the filing of the petition and
particularly describing the nature of the abuse and the dates thereof. The
abuse must have occurred not more than 180 days before the filing of the
petition. The petition must include allegations made under oath or affirmation
or a declaration under penalty of perjury. The circuit court shall have
jurisdiction over all proceedings under ORS 107.700 to 107.735.
(2) The
petitioner has the burden of proving a claim under ORS 107.700 to 107.735 by a
preponderance of the evidence.
(3) A person’s
right to relief under ORS 107.700 to 107.735 shall not be affected by the fact
that the person left the residence or household to avoid abuse.
(4) A petition
filed under ORS 107.700 to 107.735 shall disclose the existence of any custody,
Family Abuse Prevention Act or Elderly Persons and Persons With Disabilities
Abuse Prevention Act proceedings, or any marital annulment, dissolution or
separation proceedings, or any proceeding to adjudicate parentage of a child of
the parties, pending between the parties, and the existence of any other
custody order affecting the children of the parties.
(5) When the
petitioner requests custody of any child, the petition shall comply with ORS
109.767 and disclose:
(a) The child’s
present residence and the length of time the child has resided at the
residence;
(b) The county
and state where the child resided for the five years immediately prior to the
filing of the petition;
(c) The name and
address of the party or other responsible person with whom the child is
presently residing;
(d) The name and
current address of any party or other responsible person with whom the child
resided for the five years immediately prior to the filing of the petition;
(e) Whether the
party participated as a party, witness or in any other capacity, in any other
litigation concerning the custody of the child in this or any other state;
(f) Whether the
party has information of any custody proceeding concerning the child pending in
a court of this or any other state; and
(g) Whether the
party knows of any person not a party to the proceedings who has physical
custody of the child or claims to have custody, parenting time or visitation
rights with respect to the child.
(6) For purposes
of computing the 180-day period in this section and ORS 107.718, any time
during which the respondent is incarcerated or has a principal residence more
than 100 miles from the principal residence of the petitioner shall not be
counted as part of the 180-day period. [1977 c.845 §6; 1981 c.780 §2; 1985
c.629 §2; 1987 c.805 §2; 1993 c.375 §1; 1995 c.637 §3; 1995 c.666 §19; 1997
c.707 §14; 1999 c.617 §4; 1999 c.649 §50; 1999 c.738 §7; 1999 c.1052 §13; 2003
c.264 §7; 2015 c.121 §13; 2025 c.592 §116]
107.715 [1977 c.845 §7; repealed by 1981
c.780 §5 (107.716 enacted in lieu of 107.715)]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
49
cases (
19 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case:
Holbert v. Noon, 260 P.3d 836 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
Holbert v. Noon, 260 P.3d 836 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 24× “"Perhaps the solution would be to replace the words `immediate and present danger' in ORS 107.710 [and ORS 107.718] with the words `imminent danger.”
M. A. B. v. Buell, 466 P.3d 949 (Or. 2020).
· cites it 6× “718 if the court finds that: (A) Abuse has occurred within the period specified in ORS 107.710 (1); (B) The petitioner reasonably fears for the petitioner’s physical safety; and 556 M.”
P. K. W. v. Steagall, 452 P.3d 1059 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 6× “Respondent argues that the trial court erred by continuing the restraining order because there was insufficient evidence in the record to support the restraining order as required by ORS 107.710(1). Held: The trial court did not err.”
Marriage of Strother v. Strother, 883 P.2d 249 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 4× “A proceeding under the Abuse Prevention Act involves clearly defined parties, see ORS 107.710, and is not a part of any other judicial proceedings.”
Szalai v. Holder, 572 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 2× “718(1) (indicating that the court may issue a FAPA restraining order upon a showing that the individual "has been the victim of abuse committed by the respondent within 180 days preceding the filing of the petition," and "that there is an imminent danger of further abuse to the…”
K. E. B. v. Bradley, 533 P.3d 1128 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “The legislature did so by adding a new FAPA provision that allows the trial court to continue the restraining order issued at an ex parte hearing, after a contested hearing, if the court finds that: “(A) Abuse has occurred within the period specified in ORS 107.710 (1) [which is…”
Fielder v. Fielder, 157 P.3d 220 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “See ORS 107.710(3) (stating, in part, that the right to relief under PAPA “shall not be affected by the fact that the person left the residence or household to avoid abuse”).”
Nguyen v. Bui, 536 P.3d 482 (N.M. 2023).
“3See Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 107.710 (West 2015) (“Any person who has been the victim of abuse within the preceding 180 days may petition the circuit court for relief under ORS 107.”
Lefebvre v. Lefebvre, 996 P.2d 518 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “]” See also ORS 107.710(1). ORS 107.705 defines “abuse” as “(1) * * * the occurrence of one or more of the following acts between family or household members: “(a) Attempting to cause or intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing bodily injury.”
Rhodes v. Gannon, 381 P.3d 869 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Petitioner sought a restraining order against respondent under ORS 107.710, 2 which the court granted after an ex parte hearing.”
N. F. M. v. Khalidi, 503 P.3d 468 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“See ORS 107.710(3) (“A person’s right to relief under ORS 107.”
Patton v. Patton, 377 P.3d 657 (Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016).
“See ORS 107.710(2) (“The petitioner has the burden of proving a claim under ORS 107.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.710(1) — 18 cases
Holbert v. Noon, 260 P.3d 836 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“"Perhaps the solution would be to replace the words `immediate and present danger' in ORS 107.710 [and ORS 107.718] with the words `imminent danger.”
P. K. W. v. Steagall, 452 P.3d 1059 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“Respondent argues that the trial court erred by continuing the restraining order because there was insufficient evidence in the record to support the restraining order as required by ORS 107.710(1). Held: The trial court did not err.”
Lefebvre v. Lefebvre, 996 P.2d 518 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“]” See also ORS 107.710(1). ORS 107.705 defines “abuse” as “(1) * * * the occurrence of one or more of the following acts between family or household members: “(a) Attempting to cause or intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing bodily injury.”
Marriage of Strother v. Strother, 883 P.2d 249 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
“A proceeding under the Abuse Prevention Act involves clearly defined parties, see ORS 107.710, and is not a part of any other judicial proceedings.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.710(2) — 14 cases
P. K. W. v. Steagall, 452 P.3d 1059 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“Respondent argues that the trial court erred by continuing the restraining order because there was insufficient evidence in the record to support the restraining order as required by ORS 107.710(1). Held: The trial court did not err.”
Patton v. Patton, 377 P.3d 657 (Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016).
“See ORS 107.710(2) (“The petitioner has the burden of proving a claim under ORS 107.”
K. E. B. v. Bradley, 533 P.3d 1128 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“The legislature did so by adding a new FAPA provision that allows the trial court to continue the restraining order issued at an ex parte hearing, after a contested hearing, if the court finds that: “(A) Abuse has occurred within the period specified in ORS 107.710 (1) [which is…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.710(3) — 4 cases
M. A. B. v. Buell, 466 P.3d 949 (Or. 2020).
“718 if the court finds that: (A) Abuse has occurred within the period specified in ORS 107.710 (1); (B) The petitioner reasonably fears for the petitioner’s physical safety; and 556 M.”
N. F. M. v. Khalidi, 503 P.3d 468 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“See ORS 107.710(3) (“A person’s right to relief under ORS 107.”
Fielder v. Fielder, 157 P.3d 220 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
“See ORS 107.710(3) (stating, in part, that the right to relief under PAPA “shall not be affected by the fact that the person left the residence or household to avoid abuse”).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.710(5) — 2 cases
Fielder v. Fielder, 157 P.3d 220 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
“See ORS 107.710(3) (stating, in part, that the right to relief under PAPA “shall not be affected by the fact that the person left the residence or household to avoid abuse”).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.710(6) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.