Skip to main content
The Oregon Court of Appeals on July 12 took the unusual step of admitting it had erred.
At issue was an appeal by plaintiff Kim Bradley to overturn a 2022 Multnomah County Circuit Court’s rejection of her application to renew a Family Abuse Prevention Act order against her ex-husband, John Bradley (“For More Than 30 Years, Kim Bradley Hid From Her Husband,” WW, Nov. 15, 2017).
In its ruling in Kim Bradley’s favor, the Court of Appeals determined it had previously used an outdated standard to judge FAPA renewal applications. That standard required plaintiffs to prove “imminent danger,” which lawmakers in 2019 decided was unreasonable. (Their rationale: If the FAPA order were working as designed, the person seeking protection would not actually be in imminent danger because the perpetrator would be kept at a safe distance.)
“We agree that we misstated the renewal standard,” the court wrote. “We failed to take into account a recent legislative amendment to FAPA that indirectly affected that standard.”
Janet M. Schroer, a veteran appellate litigator who represented Kim Bradley on appeal, says she’s rarely seen the Court of Appeals have to admit an error. “It’s uncommon,” Schroer says.
Schroer notes that many people who are seeking protective orders or their renewal lack the resources to appeal a trial court decision against them. Kim Bradley, however, who had previously helped convince lawmakers to toughen Oregon’s laws on strangulation, had the capacity to do so. “She did this for other women besides herself,” Schroer says.
John Bradley has a month to appeal the ruling. His attorney was unavailable for comment.
Kim Bradley hopes the Court of Appeals ruling stands. If it does, she will return to Multnomah County Circuit Court to ask a judge to renew her previous protective order.
“I’m pleased,” she says of the Court of Appeals ruling, “and especially pleased it’s going to help so many other people.”
