IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH
FAMILY COURT

Catherine Lynne Carter DOB: 2/24/77
v
Rory Grey Bowman DOB: 10/6/65

Case 0603 03051
ORDER

On the motion of the Respondent to vacate the Final Stalking Protective Order and Judgment signed by Judge Steven A Todd on April 21, 2006 is vacated.

Signed August 21, 2009 by Circuit Court Judge R. K. Mickelson

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH

CATHERINE LYNNE CARTER,  Petitioner
v
RORY GREY BOWMAN, Respondent

Case No. 060303051

ORDER TERMINATING FINAL STALKING PROTECTIVE ORDER AND JUDGMENT

This case comes before the court on respondent’s motion to terminate the final stalking protective order and judgment entered on April 22, 2006.  The court has read and considered respondent’s motion, petitioner’s opposition, the transcript of the 2006 hearing, and the exhibits.  The court further heard testimony and argument on behalf of both parties on August 21, 2009.

Insofar as respondent argues, in Part II of his memorandum of law, for a finding that this stalking protective order was void ab initio, respondent’s motion must be denied.  Respondent did not appeal from the court’s judgment, and no circumstances that might compel extraordinary relief from the judgment are present.  The court declines to revisit Judge Todd’s findings of April 22, 2006.

Based on the entire record in this action, however, the court cannot find that petitioner continues to suffer reasonable apprehension due to the past acts of respondent under ORS 163.738(2)(a)(B)(iii).  Edwards v. Biehler, 203 Or App 271, 277 (2005).  Respondent’s communications to petitioner’s boyfriend and petitioner’s counsel on April 23 and 24, 2006, must be understood in the context of how close in time to the prior hearing they occurred.  They were not, in any event, timely brought to the court’s attention as potential violations of the order.  The court is unable to find on this record that respondent’s Internet communications about petitioner and this case constitute the sort of clear threat that could be a violation of the order.

The criteria for issuing a stalking protective order under ORS 163.738(2)(a)(B)(i) to (iii) are no longer present in this case.  Edwards, 203 Or App at 277.  Respondent’s motion is therefore granted for the reasons articulated in Part I of respondent’s memorandum of law.  The final stalking protective order and judgment entered on April 22, 2006, are terminated as of August 21, 2009.  They shall have no prospective effect.  Judgment will be entered accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED this ____ day of _______________, 2009.

_____________________________

Circuit Court Judge, for Ronald E. Cinniger, Senior Judge

Submitted by: Bear Wilner-Nugent, OSB #044549, Counsel for Respondent