Respondent appeals the judgment concerning a stalking protective order (SPO) under ORS 30.866(1), arguing that the evidence does not support the trial courts findings and that the courts conclusion that the requirements for the issuance of an SPO were met was legal error.
1
We find respondents arguments unavailing and affirm the trial courts order.
This case arose in conjunction with a contentious dissolution and child custody matter. One judge presided over multiple hearings concerning dissolution, child custody, and ultimately issued the stalking protective order on appeal.
Absent de novo review, which respondent does not request, “[w]e review the trial courts factual findings for any supporting evidence and its legal conclusions for legal error.” Proffitt v. Jones, 309 Or. App. 108, 109, 481 P.3d 415 (2021). “[W]e view the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the trial courts disposition and assess whether, when so viewed, the record is legally sufficient to permit that outcome.” Id.
To obtain an SPO, a petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence:
“(1) that the respondent engaged in ‘repeated and unwanted contact’ with the petitioner;
“(2) that the petitioner was subjectively alarmed or coerced by the contact and that such alarm or coercion was objectively reasonable;
“(3) that the petitioner subjectively experienced apprehension about personal safety as a result of the contact and that such apprehension was objectively reasonable; and
“(4) that the respondent acted with the requisite mental state.”
Id. at 113, 481 P.3d 415 (quoting ORS 30.866(1)). Respondent challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial courts conclusions concerning those elements.
The trial court carefully considered the evidence and made express credibility findings in favor of petitioner and her witness. Those findings make it clear that the trial court found petitioner more credible concerning three separate incidents: (1) respondent violently confronting and injuring petitioner on July 8, 2020; (2) respondent attaching a “fleet tracker” to petitioners vehicle in order to observe her movements; and (3) respondent unlawfully intruding into petitioners apartment on September 11, 2020. The trial court determined, among other things, that “it would be objectively reasonable for a person in the Petitioners situation to have been alarmed or coerced by the contact.” Although respondents version of events differed from petitioners, there is evidence in the record sufficient to support the trial courts findings, and the trial courts conclusion that petitioner established the necessary elements under ORS 30.866(1) was not legal error.
Affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1
. Respondent also argues that his conduct was protected speech under the provisions of Article I, Section 8, of the Oregon Constitution. That argument is without merit and we reject it without discussion.
PER CURIAM