107.718
Restraining order; service of order; request for hearing. (1) When a person files a petition
under ORS 107.710, the circuit court shall hold an ex parte hearing in person
or by telephone on the day the petition is filed or on the following judicial
day. Upon a showing that the petitioner has been the victim of abuse committed
by the respondent within 180 days preceding the filing of the petition, that
there is an imminent danger of further abuse to the petitioner and that the
respondent represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the
petitioner or the petitioner’s child, the court shall, if requested by the
petitioner, order:
(a) Except as
provided in subsection (2) of this section, that temporary custody of the
children of the parties be awarded to the petitioner or, at the request of the
petitioner, to the respondent, subject to reasonable parenting time rights of
the noncustodial parent, which the court shall order, unless such parenting
time is not in the best interest of the child;
(b) That the
respondent be required to move from the petitioner’s residence, if in the sole
name of the petitioner or if it is jointly owned or rented by the petitioner
and the respondent, or if the parties are married to each other;
(c) That the
respondent be restrained from entering, or attempting to enter, a reasonable
area surrounding the petitioner’s current or subsequent residence if the
respondent is required to move from petitioner’s residence;
(d) That a peace
officer accompany the party who is leaving or has left the parties’ residence
to remove essential personal effects of the party or the party’s children, or
both, including but not limited to clothing, toiletries, diapers, medications,
Social Security cards, certified copies of records of live birth,
identification and tools of the trade;
(e) That the
respondent be restrained from intimidating, molesting, interfering with or
menacing the petitioner, or attempting to intimidate, molest, interfere with or
menace the petitioner;
(f) That the
respondent be restrained from intimidating, molesting, interfering with or
menacing any children in the custody of the petitioner, or attempting to
intimidate, molest, interfere with or menace any children in the custody of the
petitioner;
(g) That the
respondent be restrained from entering, or attempting to enter, on any premises
and a reasonable area surrounding the premises when it appears to the court
that such restraint is necessary to prevent the respondent from intimidating,
molesting, interfering with or menacing the petitioner or children whose
custody is awarded to the petitioner;
(h) Other relief
that the court considers necessary to:
(A) Provide for
the safety and welfare of the petitioner and the children in the custody of the
petitioner, including but not limited to emergency monetary assistance from the
respondent; and
(B) Prevent the
neglect and protect the safety of any service or therapy animal or any animal
kept for personal protection or companionship, but not an animal kept for any
business, commercial, agricultural or economic purpose; or
(i) Except as
described in subsection (12) of this section or parenting time ordered under
this section, that the respondent have no contact with the petitioner in
person, by telephone or by mail.
(2) If the court
determines that exceptional circumstances exist that affect the custody of a
child, the court shall order the parties to appear and provide additional
evidence at a hearing to determine temporary custody and resolve other
contested issues. Pending the hearing, the court may make any orders regarding
the child’s residence and the parties’ contact with the child that the court
finds appropriate to provide for the child’s welfare and the safety of the
parties. The court shall set a hearing time and date as provided in ORS 107.716
(2) and issue a notice of the hearing at the same time the court issues the
restraining order.
(3) The court’s
order under subsection (1) of this section is effective for a period of two
years or until the order is withdrawn or amended, or until the order is
superseded as provided in ORS 107.722, whichever is sooner.
(4) If respondent
is restrained from entering, or attempting to enter, an area surrounding
petitioner’s residence or any other premises, the order restraining respondent
shall specifically describe the area.
(5) Imminent
danger under this section includes but is not limited to situations in which
the respondent has recently threatened petitioner with additional bodily harm.
(6) If the court
awards parenting time to a parent who committed abuse, the court shall make
adequate provision for the safety of the child and of the petitioner. The order
of the court may include, but is not limited to, the following:
(a) That exchange
of a child between parents shall occur at a protected location.
(b) That
parenting time be supervised by another person or agency.
(c) That the
perpetrator of the abuse be required to attend and complete, to the
satisfaction of the court, a program of intervention for perpetrators or any
other counseling program designated by the court as a condition of the
parenting time.
(d) That the
perpetrator of the abuse not possess or consume alcohol or controlled
substances during the parenting time and for 24 hours preceding the parenting
time.
(e) That the
perpetrator of the abuse pay all or a portion of the cost of supervised
parenting time, and any program designated by the court as a condition of
parenting time.
(f) That no
overnight parenting time occur.
(7) The State
Court Administrator shall prescribe the content and form of the petition, order
and related forms for use under ORS 107.700 to 107.735. The clerk of the court
shall make available the forms and an instructional brochure explaining the
rights set forth under ORS 107.700 to 107.735.
(8) If the court
orders relief:
(a) The clerk of
the court shall provide without charge the number of certified true copies of
the petition and order necessary to provide the petitioner with one copy and to
effect service and shall have a true copy of the petition and order delivered to
the county sheriff for service upon the respondent, unless the court finds that
further service is unnecessary because the respondent appeared in person before
the court. In addition and upon request by the petitioner, the clerk shall
provide the petitioner, without charge, two exemplified copies of the petition
and order.
(b) The county
sheriff shall serve the respondent personally unless the petitioner elects to
have the respondent served personally by a private party or by a peace officer
who is called to the scene of a domestic disturbance at which the respondent is
present, and who is able to obtain a copy of the order within a reasonable
amount of time. Proof of service shall be made in accordance with ORS 107.720.
When the order does not contain the respondent’s date of birth and service is
effected by the sheriff or other peace officer, the sheriff or officer shall
verify the respondent’s date of birth with the respondent and shall record that
date on the order or proof of service entered into the Law Enforcement Data
System under ORS 107.720.
(c) No filing
fee, service fee or hearing fee shall be charged for proceedings seeking only
the relief provided under ORS 107.700 to 107.735.
(9) If the county
sheriff:
(a) Determines
that the order and petition are incomplete, the sheriff shall return the order
and petition to the clerk of the court. The clerk of the court shall notify the
petitioner, at the address provided by the petitioner, of the error or
omission.
(b) After
accepting the order and petition, cannot complete service within 10 days, the
sheriff shall notify the petitioner, at the address provided by the petitioner,
that the documents have not been served. If the petitioner does not respond
within 10 days, the sheriff shall hold the order and petition for future
service and file a return to the clerk of the court showing that service was
not completed.
(10)(a) Within 30
days after a restraining order is served under this section, the respondent
therein may request a court hearing upon any relief granted. The hearing
request form shall be available from the clerk of the court in the form
prescribed by the State Court Administrator.
(b) If the
respondent requests a hearing under paragraph (a) of this subsection, the clerk
of the court shall notify the petitioner of the date and time of the hearing,
and shall supply the petitioner with a copy of the respondent’s request for a
hearing. The petitioner shall give to the clerk of the court information
sufficient to allow such notification.
(c) The hearing
shall not be limited to the issues raised in the respondent’s request for
hearing form. If the respondent seeks to raise an issue at the hearing not
previously raised in the request for hearing form, or if the petitioner seeks
relief at the hearing not granted in the original order, the other party shall
be entitled to a reasonable continuance for the purpose of preparing a response
to the issue.
(11) If the
respondent fails to request a hearing within 30 days after a restraining order
is served, the restraining order is confirmed by operation of law. The
provisions of this section are sufficient to meet the due process requirements
of 18 U.S.C. 922(g) in that the respondent received actual notice of the right
to request a hearing and the opportunity to participate at the hearing but the
respondent failed to exercise those rights.
(12) Service of
process or other legal documents upon the petitioner is not a violation of this
section if the petitioner is served as provided in ORCP 7 or 9. [1981 c.780 §4;
1983 c.561 §2; 1985 c.629 §4; 1987 c.805 §4; 1989 c.605 §1; 1991 c.303 §2; 1991
c.382 §2; 1991 c.724 §22; 1993 c.375 §2; 1993 c.643 §2; 1995 c.637 §5; 1995
c.794 §1a; 1997 c.607 §1; 1997 c.707 §16; 1997 c.863 §4; 1999 c.617 §2; 1999
c.1052 §§9,9a; 2005 c.536 §2; 2007 c.11 §7; 2009 c.359 §1; 2011 c.274 §1; 2013
c.366 §55; 2023 c.140 §1]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
107
cases (
30 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case:
Rhodes v. Gannon, 381 P.3d 869 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
Rhodes v. Gannon, 381 P.3d 869 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 43× “We conclude that because the parties did not have an opportunity to be heard on any issue of law or fact that was related to the relief available under ORS 107.718 and because the court was not asked to make a determination on those issues, it correctly concluded that it did not…”
Holbert v. Noon, 260 P.3d 836 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 36× “Respondent in proceedings under the Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) appeals, challenging the trial court's continuance of a FAPA restraining order pursuant to ORS 107.718. On appeal, as before the trial court, respondent invokes State ex rel Juv.”
M. A. B. v. Buell, 466 P.3d 949 (Or. 2020).
· cites it 11× “That provision now states: “The court may continue any order issued under ORS 107.718 if the court finds that: (A) Abuse has occurred within the period specified in ORS 107.”
K. E. B. v. Bradley, 533 P.3d 1128 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 8× “716, ORS 107.718, and ORS 107.725. Or Laws 2023, ch 130, §§ 1 - 3.”
State v. Harrison, 417 P.3d 513 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 8× “705(5) and ORS 107.718 (1)(e), 247 Or. App. at 204 -05 , 268 P.”
Drake v. Alonso, 396 P.3d 961 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 7× “See ORS 107.718(1). Second, respondent asserts that the court erred by failing to make two findings that were essential to the issuance of a FAPA restraining order, specifically, that petitioner was in imminent danger of further abuse, and that respondent represented a credible…”
Hubbell v. Sanders, 263 P.3d 1096 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 6× “ORS 107.718. Respondent asks us to exercise our discretion to review de novo.”
Marriage of Strother v. Strother, 883 P.2d 249 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 8× “1 The trial court *627 conducted an ex parte hearing pursuant to ORS 107.718(1) 2 and thereafter issued a restraining order that prohibited father from molesting, interfering with or menacing the children and denied father visitation with the children.”
State v. Copeland, 306 P.3d 610 (Or. 2013).
· cites it 3× “Further, unlike in Melendez-Diaz , the statutes that required production of the certificate of service in this case, ORS 107.718 and ORS 107.720, demonstrate that the certificate was made for the primary purpose of “administration of an entity’s affairs.”
State v. Trivitt, 268 P.3d 765 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 9× “718, which provides, in pertinent part: “(1) * * * Upon a showing that the petitioner has been the victim of abuse committed by the respondent within 180 days preceding the filing of the petition, that there is an imminent danger of further abuse to the petitioner and that the…”
Valenti v. Ackley, 326 P.3d 604 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 6× “The court issued an ex parte FAPA restraining order under ORS 107.718, and respondent requested a hearing pursuant to ORS 107.”
M. A. B. v. Buell, 479 P.3d 1087 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 7× “ORS 107.718(1). In Buell II, the Supreme Court reversed, concluding that petitioner carried her burden as to that element under ORS 107.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.718(1) — 53 cases
M. A. B. v. Buell, 466 P.3d 949 (Or. 2020).
“That provision now states: “The court may continue any order issued under ORS 107.718 if the court finds that: (A) Abuse has occurred within the period specified in ORS 107.”
Holbert v. Noon, 260 P.3d 836 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“Respondent in proceedings under the Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) appeals, challenging the trial court's continuance of a FAPA restraining order pursuant to ORS 107.718. On appeal, as before the trial court, respondent invokes State ex rel Juv.”
Drake v. Alonso, 396 P.3d 961 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“See ORS 107.718(1). Second, respondent asserts that the court erred by failing to make two findings that were essential to the issuance of a FAPA restraining order, specifically, that petitioner was in imminent danger of further abuse, and that respondent represented a credible…”
Rhodes v. Gannon, 381 P.3d 869 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“We conclude that because the parties did not have an opportunity to be heard on any issue of law or fact that was related to the relief available under ORS 107.718 and because the court was not asked to make a determination on those issues, it correctly concluded that it did not…”
M. A. B. v. Buell, 479 P.3d 1087 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“ORS 107.718(1). In Buell II, the Supreme Court reversed, concluding that petitioner carried her burden as to that element under ORS 107.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.718(1)(a) — 3 cases
Marriage of Strother v. Strother, 883 P.2d 249 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
“1 The trial court *627 conducted an ex parte hearing pursuant to ORS 107.718(1) 2 and thereafter issued a restraining order that prohibited father from molesting, interfering with or menacing the children and denied father visitation with the children.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.718(1)(e) — 2 cases
State v. Harrison, 417 P.3d 513 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“705(5) and ORS 107.718 (1)(e), 247 Or. App. at 204 -05 , 268 P.”
State v. Trivitt, 268 P.3d 765 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“718, which provides, in pertinent part: “(1) * * * Upon a showing that the petitioner has been the victim of abuse committed by the respondent within 180 days preceding the filing of the petition, that there is an imminent danger of further abuse to the petitioner and that the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.718(1)(h) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.718(1)(i) — 1 case
State v. Harrison, 417 P.3d 513 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“705(5) and ORS 107.718 (1)(e), 247 Or. App. at 204 -05 , 268 P.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.718(10) — 17 cases
Rhodes v. Gannon, 381 P.3d 869 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“We conclude that because the parties did not have an opportunity to be heard on any issue of law or fact that was related to the relief available under ORS 107.718 and because the court was not asked to make a determination on those issues, it correctly concluded that it did not…”
K. E. B. v. Bradley, 533 P.3d 1128 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“716, ORS 107.718, and ORS 107.725. Or Laws 2023, ch 130, §§ 1 - 3.”
M. A. B. v. Buell, 466 P.3d 949 (Or. 2020).
“That provision now states: “The court may continue any order issued under ORS 107.718 if the court finds that: (A) Abuse has occurred within the period specified in ORS 107.”
Drake v. Alonso, 396 P.3d 961 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“See ORS 107.718(1). Second, respondent asserts that the court erred by failing to make two findings that were essential to the issuance of a FAPA restraining order, specifically, that petitioner was in imminent danger of further abuse, and that respondent represented a credible…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.718(10)(a) — 2 cases
Rhodes v. Gannon, 381 P.3d 869 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“We conclude that because the parties did not have an opportunity to be heard on any issue of law or fact that was related to the relief available under ORS 107.718 and because the court was not asked to make a determination on those issues, it correctly concluded that it did not…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.718(10)(c) — 3 cases
Rhodes v. Gannon, 381 P.3d 869 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“We conclude that because the parties did not have an opportunity to be heard on any issue of law or fact that was related to the relief available under ORS 107.718 and because the court was not asked to make a determination on those issues, it correctly concluded that it did not…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.718(11) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.718(12) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.718(2) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.718(3) — 4 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.718(4) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.718(5) — 3 cases
M. A. B. v. Buell, 466 P.3d 949 (Or. 2020).
“That provision now states: “The court may continue any order issued under ORS 107.718 if the court finds that: (A) Abuse has occurred within the period specified in ORS 107.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.718(6) — 6 cases
Marriage of Strother v. Strother, 883 P.2d 249 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
“1 The trial court *627 conducted an ex parte hearing pursuant to ORS 107.718(1) 2 and thereafter issued a restraining order that prohibited father from molesting, interfering with or menacing the children and denied father visitation with the children.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.718(6)(b) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.718(7) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.718(7)(b) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.718(8) — 8 cases
K. E. B. v. Bradley, 533 P.3d 1128 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“716, ORS 107.718, and ORS 107.725. Or Laws 2023, ch 130, §§ 1 - 3.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.718(8)(b) — 1 case
State v. Copeland, 306 P.3d 610 (Or. 2013).
“Further, unlike in Melendez-Diaz , the statutes that required production of the certificate of service in this case, ORS 107.718 and ORS 107.720, demonstrate that the certificate was made for the primary purpose of “administration of an entity’s affairs.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.718(l) — 1 case
Rhodes v. Gannon, 381 P.3d 869 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“We conclude that because the parties did not have an opportunity to be heard on any issue of law or fact that was related to the relief available under ORS 107.718 and because the court was not asked to make a determination on those issues, it correctly concluded that it did not…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.718(l)(a) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.718(l)(c) — 5 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.718(l)(e) — 2 cases
State v. Trivitt, 268 P.3d 765 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“718, which provides, in pertinent part: “(1) * * * Upon a showing that the petitioner has been the victim of abuse committed by the respondent within 180 days preceding the filing of the petition, that there is an imminent danger of further abuse to the petitioner and that the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.718(l)(f) — 1 case
State v. Trivitt, 268 P.3d 765 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“718, which provides, in pertinent part: “(1) * * * Upon a showing that the petitioner has been the victim of abuse committed by the respondent within 180 days preceding the filing of the petition, that there is an imminent danger of further abuse to the petitioner and that the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.718(l)(g) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.718(l)(h) — 3 cases
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.