Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

P.M.H. v. Landolt

Court of Appeals of Oregon

December 24, 2014

P. M. H., guardian ad litem for M. M. H., Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
WILLIAM LOGAN LANDOLT, Respondent-Appellant

Submitted March 13, 2014.

Tillamook County Circuit Court. 122012. Jonathan R. Hill, Judge.

James B. Ehrlich filed the briefs for appellant.

Andy Simrin and Andy Simrin PC filed the brief for respondent.

Before Duncan, Presiding Judge, and Hadlock, Judge, and Lagesen, Judge.

OPINION

Page 176

[267 Or.App. 754] HADLOCK, J.

Respondent appeals a judgment imposing a stalking protective order (SPO) against him pursuant to ORS 30.866. He contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the entry of that SPO. We agree and, therefore, reverse.[1]

To establish that an SPO should issue under ORS 30.866, petitioner had the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that each of the requirements of that statute were met. C.J.R. v. Fleming, 265 Or.App. 342, 348, 336 P.3d 534 (2014).[2] The statutory requirements may be summarized as follows.

" First, a respondent's conduct must meet the statutory definition of 'repeated and unwanted contact' with the petitioner or a member of the petitioner's immediate family or household. Second, the petitioner must subjectively-- i.e., 'actually'--'be alarmed or coerced by the contacts' and that alarm or coercion must be objectively reasonable. Third, the contacts also must actually cause the petitioner apprehension about personal safety and that apprehension, too, must be objectively reasonable. Finally, the respondent must have acted with the requisite mental state."

J.L.B. v. K.P.B., 250 Or.App. 122, 128-29, 279 P.3d 290 (2012) (citations omitted).[3]

Page 177

[267 Or.App. 755] The trial court entered the SPO against respondent on the basis of its conclusion that each of those statutory requirements was satisfied. Because this is not an exceptional case justifying de novo review, " we review the trial court's factual findings for 'any evidence' and its legal conclusions for errors of law." Id. at 124. We describe the facts in accordance with that standard.

Petitioner in this case is a child who was 13 years old at the time of the 2012 SPO hearing; petitioner's guardian ad litem --her maternal grandmother--filed the SPO petition on her behalf. Petitioner was removed from her biological mother's care when she was very young. Her maternal grandmother and step-grandfather adopted her in 2007, and because ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.