2017 ORS 107.710¹
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 (Short title) to 107.735 (Duties of State Court Administrator), 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 (Short title) to 107.735 (Duties of State Court Administrator).

(2) The petitioner has the burden of proving a claim under ORS 107.700 (Short title) to 107.735 (Duties of State Court Administrator) by a preponderance of the evidence.

(3) A person’s right to relief under ORS 107.700 (Short title) to 107.735 (Duties of State Court Administrator) 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 (Short title) to 107.735 (Duties of State Court Administrator) 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 filiation proceeding, 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 (Information to be submitted to court) 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 (Restraining order), 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]

Notes of Decisions

Criminal contempt pro­ceed­ing for failure to obey restraining order issued pursuant to Family Abuse Preven­tion Act is not “crim­i­nal pros­e­cu­­tion” within meaning of Article I, sec­tion 11 of Oregon Constitu­tion. State ex rel Hathaway v. Hart, 70 Or App 541, 690 P2d 514 (1984), aff’d 300 Or 231, 708 P2d 1137 (1985); Bachman v. Bachman, 171 Or App 665, 16 P3d 1185 (2000), Sup Ct review denied

Existence of restraining order prohibiting peti­tioner from contacting respondent does not provide grounds for refusing to issue restraining order prohibiting respondent from contacting peti­tioner. Rosiles-Flores v. Browning, 208 Or App 600, 145 P3d 328 (2006)

Judg­ment holding individual in contempt of “stay away” por­tion of restraining order does not constitute viola­tion of protec­tion order under federal Immigra­tion and Na­tionality Act. Szalai v. Holder, 572 F3d 975 (9th Cir. 2009)

Law Review Cita­tions

33 WLR 971 (1997); 85 OLR 325 (2006)

Chapter 107

Notes of Decisions

Trial court has authority to es­tab­lish liquidated sum as amount owed by spouse under settle­ment agree­ment. Horner and Horner, 119 Or App 112, 849 P2d 560 (1993)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Emergency or necessity as the only grounds for waiver of 90-day period, (1971) Vol 35, p 982

Law Review Cita­tions

55 OLR 267-277 (1976); 27 WLR 51 (1991)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 107—Marital Dissolution, Annulment and Separation; Mediation and Conciliation Services; Family Abuse Prevention, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors107.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 107, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano107.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.