171
Submitted April 2, affirmed June 3, 2021
K. E. J.,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
Joshua Blackwell JESSEE,
Respondent-Appellant.
Marion County Circuit Court
20PO04650; A174312
Jennifer K. Gardiner, Judge pro tempore.
Joshua B. Jessee filed the brief pro se.
No appearance for respondent.
Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and
Kamins, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Affirmed.
172 K. E. J. v. Jessee
PER CURIAM
Respondent appeals the entry of an amended Family
Abuse and Prevention Act (FAPA) restraining order issued
against him under ORS 107.700 to 107.735. He contends
that the trial court improperly found the qualifying circumstances to continue the order despite contradictory evidence
in the record. We review the court’s legal determinations for
legal error and its findings of fact for any evidence in the
record to support those findings. Buell v. Buell,
(2020). We affirm.
Petitioner was granted an ex parte FAPA order
under ORS 107.718(1). Respondent contested the entry of the
order and requested a hearing under ORS 107.718(10). After
the hearing, the trial court continued the order under ORS
107.716(3)(a),1 which provides that
“[t]he 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 107.710(1);
“(B) The petitioner reasonably fears for the petitioner’s
physical safety; and
“(C) The respondent represents a credible threat to the
physical safety of the petitioner or the petitioner’s child.”
Here, petitioner testified that, within 180 days of
filing the petition, respondent behaved violently on multiple occasions. First, on one occasion, respondent had gotten
so angry at petitioner that he punched and kicked a door
in front of their four-year-old daughter until the door was
destroyed. On another occasion, respondent punched a wall
in the couple’s bedroom due to his insistence that petitioner
was having an affair. In the same time frame, respondent
woke petitioner up in the middle of the night and threw
her phone at the wall, creating a hole in the wall and shattering the phone. He then immediately took their daughter to Montana for a week (the first of two occasions that
1
Petitioner filed her petition and was granted the FAPA order on June 1,
2020. Thus, we apply the current version of ORS 107.716(3), which was amended
by the legislature in 2019 and became effective May 22, 2019. See Or Laws 2019,
ch 144, § 1.
Cite as
312 Or App 171
(2021) 173
he took the child to Montana without petitioner’s consent).
Petitioner also testified that respondent tracked petitioner’s whereabouts by planting devices in her purse and car,
changed her passwords to her email accounts and deleted
her emails, and continued this behavior even after he was
served with divorce papers. Although respondent’s testimony contradicted those facts, the trial court expressly discredited his testimony and credited petitioner’s version of
events. Gladd v. Lucarelli,
(2021) (explaining that “it is for the trial court to make
the necessary credibility determinations … and, if there
is any evidence to support the trial court’s findings, we are
bound by those findings”).
In reviewing the record, we conclude that there was
legally sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s factual findings, which in turn support the court’s conclusion
that respondent placed petitioner in fear of imminent bodily
injury within 180 days prior to the petition, that petitioner
reasonably fears for her physical safety, and that respondent
poses a credible threat to petitioner. ORS 107.716(3)(a).
Affirmed.
