Respondent appeals the trial courts continuation of a restraining order issued against him under the Family Abuse Prevention Act, ORS 107.700 to 107.735. While working from her marital home, petitioner was leading a video meeting with several colleagues when respondent, who was her father-in-law, interrupted the meeting by loudly making humiliating remarks about her at the screen and refusing to leave despite repeated requests from petitioner and her coworkers. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that while respondents behavior was reprehensible, the evidence was insufficient to establish that he “represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the petitioner.” ORS 107.716(3)(a)(C). Given that disposition, we need not reach respondents argument concerning how the Supreme Courts jurisprudence relating to free speech, particularly, State v. Rangel, 328 Or. 294, 977 P.2d 379 (1999) applies, if at all, to the Family Abuse Prevention Act.
Reversed.
PER CURIAM