107.725
Renewal of order.
(1) The court may renew for a period of two years an order entered under ORS
107.716 or 107.718 or renewed under this section upon a finding that:
(a) A person in
the petitioner’s situation would reasonably fear further acts of abuse by the
respondent if the order is not renewed; or
(b) A person in
the situation of a child who was in the petitioner’s custody during the time
the order existed, who was also included as a protected person in the order and
who has reached 18 years of age since the date the order was entered would
reasonably fear further acts of abuse by the respondent if the order is not
renewed.
(2) A finding
that there has been a further act of abuse is not required to renew an order
under subsection (1) of this section.
(3) The court may
renew an order under subsection (1)(b) of this section regardless of whether
the original petitioner agrees to or seeks renewal of the order. If the
petitioner does not agree to or seek renewal of the order concurrently with the
request of the child who has reached 18 years of age, the court may modify the
order upon renewal to exclude the petitioner as a protected person in the
order. A child who has reached 18 years of age may seek renewal under this
section without having to file a petition under ORS 107.710.
(4) A court may
renew an order on the basis of an ex parte petition alleging facts supporting
the required finding. The petition must include allegations made under oath or
affirmation or a declaration under penalty of perjury. If the renewal order is
granted, the provisions of ORS 107.716 (5) and 107.718 (8) to (10) apply except
that the court may hear no issue other than the basis for renewal unless
requested in the hearing request form and thereafter agreed to by the
petitioner or the child who has reached 18 years of age. The court shall hold a
hearing required under this section within 21 days after the respondent’s
request. [1985 c.629 §46; 1997 c.863 §7; 1999 c.1052 §15; 2003 c.14 §42; 2005
c.536 §9; 2011 c.206 §1; 2015 c.121 §15; 2023 c.140 §2]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
7 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case:
K. E. B. v. Bradley, 533 P.3d 1128 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
K. E. B. v. Bradley, 533 P.3d 1128 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 9× “Multnomah County Circuit Court 16PO02279; A178936 533 P3d 1128 Petitioner sought renewal of a Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) restrain- ing order, ORS 107.725, that she had initially obtained in 2016 and successfully renewed annually until 2022, when the trial court denied…”
Edwards v. Biehler, 124 P.3d 1256 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“ORS 107.725. Thus, in the FAPA context, a judge may terminate a renewed FAPA order upon a respondent’s showing that the petitioner lacks a reasonable fear of future abuse.”
Magyar v. Weinstein, 153 P.3d 135 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
“ORS 107.725. In fact, there is no evidence that respondent applied to have the order renewed.”
Lowes v. Thompson, 374 Or. 23 (Or. 2025).
“718(3), and it can be renewed for an additional two years, ORS 107.725(1). The trial court later granted, preliminarily, Thompson’s request to renew the restraining order.”
Hannemann v. Anderson, 283 P.3d 386 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“See ORS 107.725 (the court may renew an order entered under ORS 107.”
Heusel v. Multnomah Cnty. Dist. Attorney's Off., 989 P.2d 465 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“ORS 107.725. Under ORS 107.718(1), a FAPA restraining order remains in effect for one year or until the order is withdrawn, amended, or superseded by the court, whichever occurs first.”
K. E. B. v. Bradley (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 8× “It also could be renewed annually, if the court found that “[a] person in the petitioner’s situation would reasonably fear further acts of abuse” if the order was not renewed, regardless of whether any “further act of abuse” had occurred.”
Lowes v. Thompson, 374 Or. 23 (Or. 2025).
“718(3), and it can be renewed for an additional two years, ORS 107.725(1). The trial court later granted, preliminarily, Thompson’s request to renew the restraining order.”
J. N. D. v. Dehkordi, 481 P.3d 422 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 5× “742, contending that the trial court’s findings that respondent continues to pose an imminent danger of further abuse and a credible threat to petitioner’s physical safety are not supported by the record.”
S. N. G. v. I. D. W., 322 Or. App. 597 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 4× “See ORS 107.725;1 J. N. D. v. Dehkordi, 309 Or App 198, 201-02 , 481 P3d 422 (2021) (In seeking to renew a FAPA order, the peti- tioner bears the burden to present evidence of an objectively reasonable subjective fear that the respondent continues to pose an imminent danger of…”
R. R. v. Roberts, 334 Or. App. 279 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 3× “” ORS 107.725(1)(a). Put differently, a trial court may renew a FAPA order when a petitioner reason- ably fears for their physical safety.”
J.J.N. v. Neuman, 424 P.3d 793 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“A FAPA restraining order may be renewed if the trial court makes a finding that "a person in the petitioner's situation would reasonably fear further acts of abuse by the respondent if the order is not renewed.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.725(1) — 6 cases
K. E. B. v. Bradley, 533 P.3d 1128 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“Multnomah County Circuit Court 16PO02279; A178936 533 P3d 1128 Petitioner sought renewal of a Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) restrain- ing order, ORS 107.725, that she had initially obtained in 2016 and successfully renewed annually until 2022, when the trial court denied…”
Lowes v. Thompson, 374 Or. 23 (Or. 2025).
“718(3), and it can be renewed for an additional two years, ORS 107.725(1). The trial court later granted, preliminarily, Thompson’s request to renew the restraining order.”
Lowes v. Thompson, 374 Or. 23 (Or. 2025).
“718(3), and it can be renewed for an additional two years, ORS 107.725(1). The trial court later granted, preliminarily, Thompson’s request to renew the restraining order.”
J. N. D. v. Dehkordi, 481 P.3d 422 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“742, contending that the trial court’s findings that respondent continues to pose an imminent danger of further abuse and a credible threat to petitioner’s physical safety are not supported by the record.”
S. N. G. v. I. D. W., 322 Or. App. 597 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“See ORS 107.725;1 J. N. D. v. Dehkordi, 309 Or App 198, 201-02 , 481 P3d 422 (2021) (In seeking to renew a FAPA order, the peti- tioner bears the burden to present evidence of an objectively reasonable subjective fear that the respondent continues to pose an imminent danger of…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.725(1)(a) — 4 cases
K. E. B. v. Bradley, 533 P.3d 1128 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“Multnomah County Circuit Court 16PO02279; A178936 533 P3d 1128 Petitioner sought renewal of a Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) restrain- ing order, ORS 107.725, that she had initially obtained in 2016 and successfully renewed annually until 2022, when the trial court denied…”
K. E. B. v. Bradley (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“It also could be renewed annually, if the court found that “[a] person in the petitioner’s situation would reasonably fear further acts of abuse” if the order was not renewed, regardless of whether any “further act of abuse” had occurred.”
R. R. v. Roberts, 334 Or. App. 279 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“” ORS 107.725(1)(a). Put differently, a trial court may renew a FAPA order when a petitioner reason- ably fears for their physical safety.”
J.J.N. v. Neuman, 424 P.3d 793 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“A FAPA restraining order may be renewed if the trial court makes a finding that "a person in the petitioner's situation would reasonably fear further acts of abuse by the respondent if the order is not renewed.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.725(2) — 4 cases
K. E. B. v. Bradley, 533 P.3d 1128 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“Multnomah County Circuit Court 16PO02279; A178936 533 P3d 1128 Petitioner sought renewal of a Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) restrain- ing order, ORS 107.725, that she had initially obtained in 2016 and successfully renewed annually until 2022, when the trial court denied…”
J. N. D. v. Dehkordi, 481 P.3d 422 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“742, contending that the trial court’s findings that respondent continues to pose an imminent danger of further abuse and a credible threat to petitioner’s physical safety are not supported by the record.”
K. E. B. v. Bradley (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“It also could be renewed annually, if the court found that “[a] person in the petitioner’s situation would reasonably fear further acts of abuse” if the order was not renewed, regardless of whether any “further act of abuse” had occurred.”
R. R. v. Roberts, 334 Or. App. 279 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“” ORS 107.725(1)(a). Put differently, a trial court may renew a FAPA order when a petitioner reason- ably fears for their physical safety.”
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.