P. K. W., Petitioner-Respondent,
David Edward STEAGALL, Respondent-Appellant. 299 Or.App. 820
Submitted June 7, 2019
County Circuit Court 18PO05430; David E. Delsman, Judge.
Reid fled the brief for appellant.
Chelsea D. Armstrong and Armstrong Chai, LLC, fled the brief
Hadlock, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Mooney,
Summary: Respondent appeals from an order that continued an
ex parte restraining order following a contested
hearing. Respondent argues that the trial courter red 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. The record
contained sufficient evidence to support the trial
court's findings and conclusions of law.
Or.App. 821] MOONEY, J.
a Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA), ORS 107.700 to 107.735,
restraining order case between the parties to a six-year
intimate relationship. Respondent appeals from an order that
continued an ex parte restraining order following a
contested hearing. 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). We disagree
and, therefore, affirm.
to stating the facts of this case, we briefly set out the
applicable legal standards and process for obtaining a FAPA
restraining order. When a person has been abused within the
previous 180 days, he or she may petition the circuit court
for a restraining order. ORS 107.710(1). After receiving the
petition, the court shall hold an ex parte hearing
and grant the restraining order upon a showing that (1) the
petitioner has been a victim of abuse within the 180-day time
period immediately before the petition for the restraining
order is filed, (2) the petitioner is in imminent danger of
further abuse, and (3) the respondent represents a credible
threat to the petitioner's physical safety. ORS
107.718(1). If the court issues the ex parte
restraining order, the respondent may request a hearing to
challenge the restraining order. ORS 107.718(10). The burden
of proof at both the ex parte and the contested
hearing is by a preponderance of the evidence and is carried
by the petitioner. ORS 107.718(1); ORS
Or.App. 822] On appeal, we review the trial court's legal
conclusions for legal error. Kargol v. Kargol, 295
Or.App. 529, 530, 435 P.3d 814 (2019). We are bound by the
trial court's factual findings-both those that are
explicit and those that are necessarily implied by its
rulings-if any evidence in the record supports them.
Hannemann v. Anderson, 251 Or.App. 207, 208, 283
P.3d 386 (2012). We therefore describe the facts consistent
with that standard.
following facts are taken from the evidence admitted at the
contested hearing. Petitioner and respondent began their
romantic relationship sometime in 2012. For the first three
years, they lived in separate residences and then, in
December 2015, petitioner and her son, A, moved into
respondent's home, where he resided with his children, D,
J, and K. The parties worked on some "combined parenting
skills," but generally each was responsible for
disciplining his or her own child(ren). The dynamics of that
arrangement became complicated and the parties'
relationship deteriorated. Their interactions became
volatile; respondent began tracking petitioner's
whereabouts with a GPS device, and he frequently boasted
about physical fights he had been in and won. Respondent
required petitioner to turn her paychecks over to him for
deposit into their joint account. Approximately one week
before the June 3 incident (described below), he removed her
name from the account so that she no longer had access to her
January 2018, an incident occurred during a family trip to
the store in respondent's truck. Respondent went into the
store for bread and the others waited in the truck.
Respondent's son, J, pushed K down in the back seat where
they were sitting. Petitioner, seated in the front passenger
seat, attempted to intervene and defuse the situation by
flicking J in the mouth with her finger. J resisted [299
Or.App. 823] by blocking those attempts and the situation
escalated. While in the store, respondent noticed a commotion
out in the truck, at which point he returned, opened the back
door, and hit petitioner several times on both sides of her
incident that prompted petitioner to file her restraining
order petition occurred on June 3, 2018. It is undisputed
that petitioner and respondent began that day with an
intimate encounter. Petitioner testified that the intimate
encounter was consensual but that, after it ended, respondent
penetrated her rectum with his finger several times after she
told him not to do so. Respondent disputes that petitioner
told him not to do so and testified further that petitioner
had said that "that's how she liked it."
then attended church services later that morning. While the
parties were still in respondent's truck after returning
from church, they argued about money, with respondent telling
petitioner that she needed to turn her paychecks over to him.
The argument was heated, and petitioner got out of the truck
and went into the house, specifically to A and D's shared
bedroom. Respondent followed her, making loud statements
about petitioner's experiences with other men while her
son was close enough to hear. Petitioner began to videotape
respondent with her phone, and she told respondent that his
comments were criminal because her son was present to hear
them. Respondent, further angered by this, knocked her down
onto the bed and took her phone. As petitioner jumped up in
an effort to retrieve her phone, respondent threw her into an
elliptical exercise machine, causing pain and leaving her
bruised. Petitioner chased respondent in an unsuccessful
attempt to get her phone back. She and her ...