Oregon lawmakers must recognize abuse on paper is not currently enough.

When a parent has already been found responsible for domestic or sexual violence the violence does not just disappear once a restraint order is issued or when a custody case begins a lot of times the violence just changes. That same parent can withhold the child and ignore court orders  dragging out the legal process for weeks or even months while pressuring the protective parent into a very hard choice. Keep the legal protections that keep you safe or drop them to appease the abuser so you can see your child in a timely manner.

THIS IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW under Oregon law. Survivors are being forced to decide between their safety and their relationship with their child (plus the child’s safety). Children are being used as leverage. Protective parents are left waiting with almost no fast and safe way to enforce orders already in place.

I’m one of those parents. If i drop my restraining order, it has been clear he will give me access. This time I’m refusing to do that, waiting while the system gives me little power to get her back quickly and safety. I have considered dismissing the orders and walking away to recover her. I have done so once before. It is what he wants. Under the current system that path is often the only realistic way to end the conflict. She had been with me full time for nearly a year, and as soon as the opportunity became available he began withholding her. This is NOT an isolated story, it’s a pattern within the system.

Oregon does already have important tools. Under ORS 107.137 there is a rebuttable presumption against awarding custody to a parent who has committed abuse. Under ORS 107.718, when parenting time is awarded to a parent who committed abuse, the court must make adequate provision for the safety of the child and the protected parent. These provisions do matter, though they are not enough.

What is missing is rapid enforcement and clear consequences when a parent with a restraining order or documented history of abuse withholds a child in violation of court orders.  survivors and their children shouldn’t be left waiting while coercive control continues through the child.

We are asking the Oregon Legislature to strengthen the law in a few concrete ways. 

1. Expedited enforcement when a restrained or abusive parent withholds a child                                        When there is an active Family Abuse Prevention Act restraining order, a court ordered parenting schedule and one parent withholds the child the protective parent must be able to obtain interim relief on an accelerated basis including the temporary return of the child and temporary safety modifications without having to reprove the full imminent danger standard from scratch. A review hearing should be required within a short timeframe. (For example, 7 days)
2. Clearer requirements that courts prioritize safety and the protective parent’s ability to maintain the relationship when coercive control is exercised through a child.                           Clarify that efforts by one parent to pressure/condition contact with the child on the other parents dismissal of restraining order court orders consititue evidence of ongoing coercive control. This conduct should be relevant to the best interest factors under ORS 107.137 and to the safety provisions required under ORS 107.718(6) when parenting time is ordered in cases involving abuse.
3. Heightened scrutiny of unsupervised parenting time after withholding.                                              When a parent withholds a history of abuse under ORS 107.705 or an active restraining order withholds a child in violation of a court-ordered parenting schedule, the court should apply heightened scrutiny before restoring unsupervised parenting time. A temporary presumption against unsupervised contact could apply until a full hearing is held and the court determines that unsupervised time can be exercised safely under the standards of ORS 107.137 and ORS 107.718.
4. Expanded authority for Child Protective Services to re-engage after case closure.                            When CPS has recently closed a case involving the same child and parent, an active restraining order under ORS 107.700-107.735 exists, and the child is being withheld in violation of a court ordered parenting schedule the agency should have clear statutory authority to seek expedited temporary protective relief. This should include the ability to request an immediate court order for the return of the child and a focused safety assessment without being required to reopen an entirely new investigation from scratch. Temporary child welfare findings should not evaporate the moment a case is closed leaving the protective parent and child without a pathway for rapid reintervention when the same risk dynamic reappears.
5. Mandatory written safety provisions when parenting time is awarded to a restrained parent.                                                                                                                                                                                                           Strengthen ORS 107.718(6) so that any award of parenting time to a parent who is a restrained part under a Family Abuse Prevention Act order must include specific written safety provisions such as supervised exchanges, protected exchange locations, and any other condition necessary for the safety of the child and protected parent. These provisions should remain in effect until the court makes a new affirmative finding that they are no longer necessary.
6. Accountability for default judgements obtained against survivors who may be in crisis unrepresented or still recovering from the violence itself.                                                                                    When a parent has a documented history of abuse under ORS 107.705 or an active restraining order under ORS 107.7000-107.735 courts should not enter a default custody or parenting judgement without additional notice requirements and a review of whether the non appearing parent is a survivor who may have been prevented from participation due to fear, trauma, lack of resources, or the ongoing control.

Oregon is not starting from zero. Several states have already adopted stronger protections that address these exact gaps:

1. California (Family Code 3044) creates rebuttable presumption that awarding sole or joint custody to a parent who has committed domestic violence within the past five years is detrimental to the child. This presumption applies to both legal and physical custody (parenting time). California also explicitly includes coercive control in its definition of domestic violence and courts must make specific written findings if they grant unsupervised parenting time despite history of abuse.
2. Louisiana (La. R.S. 9:364, the Post-Seperation Family Violence Relief Act) establishes a rebuttable presumption that a parent with a history of perpetrating family violence should not be awarded sole or joint custody. Overcoming the presumption requires the abusive parent to meet specific conditions including complete ion of a court monitored domestic abuse intervention program. Unsupervised visitation cannot be granted unless the abusive parent proves by preponderance of the evidence they completed the program as well as refrained from drugs or alcohol, and that the child’s best interest requires their participation because of problems such as absence from the other parent. Any violation results in termination of visitation. This structure places a high ongoing burden on the abusive parent instead of the protective parent.
3. Alaska (Alaska State. 25.24.150) creates a rebuttable presumption that a parent with a history of perpetrating domestic violence may not be awarded sole legal custody, sole physical custody (parenting time), joint legal custody, or joint physical custody (parenting time). When the presumption applies, the court may allow only supervised visitation conditioned on the parent’s participation in and successful completion of an intervention program as well as a parenting education program. Unsupervised time requires additional showings including completion of substance abuse treatment if relevant.
4. KENTUCKY (KRS 403.315) has strengthened its statues so that a finding of two or more acts of domestic violence create a presumption against joint custody and equally shared parenting time. The court “shall not” award custody or grant unsupervised visitation the that parent unless the parent has completed a certified batterer’s intervention program, parenting classes, and any mental health assessments or substance use treatments, and has participated in supervised visitation without issue, and the court holds further evidentiary hearings before expanding contact.

Oregon already recognizes how serious domestic and sexual violence is through the Family Abuse Prevention Act (ORS 107.700-207.735) and the best interest factors and rebuttable presumption in ORS 107.137. Those protections are important but they really are not sufficient when a parent with a history of abuse withholds a child, and emergency relief remains out of reach because the evidentiary bar is too high, or when a protective parent is pushed to abandon her restraining order in order to gain contact and verify the safety with his/her child.

These changes would only build on Oregon’s current framework, not discard it in any way. They would help ensure that when the court recognizes abuse the system does not leave children and their parents waiting while coercive control is continued through child.

I know it is too late for my case, but it is NOT too late for the next parent and child in this position.

SIGN THIS PETITION. TELL OREGON LAWMAKERS SURVIVORS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN SAFETY AND THEIR CHILDREN.  DEMAND REAL CONSEQUENCES WHEN ABUSERS USE CHILDREN AS WEAPONS. DEMAND THAT THE LAW FINALLY TREAT CONTROL THROUGH THE CHILD AS THE ABUSE IT IS. YOUR VOICE NO MATTER HOW QUIET MATTERS.