Pefferle and Pefferle

487 P.3d 69, 311 Or. App. 622

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: May 19, 2021
• Docket: A174423
• Status: Published

Opinion

Argued and submitted April 14, reversed and remanded May 19, 2021

In the Matter of the Marriage of Lauren Elizabeth PEFFERLE, Petitioner-Appellant, and Jeffery Joseph PEFFERLE, Respondent-Respondent. Washington County Circuit Court 16DR21726; A174423 487 P3d 69

Ramon A. Pagan, Judge. George W. Kelly argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant. No appearance for respondent. Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and Kamins, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded. Cite as 311 Or App 622 (2021) 623

PER CURIAM Mother appeals an order requiring the Department of Justice to disclose to father, her former husband with whom she has two children, the address that the children share with mother. Mother and the two children are partic- ipants in Oregon’s Address Confidentiality Program, which is intended to protect the confidentiality of the addresses of victims of domestic violence. By statute, the Attorney General is prohibited from disclosing a program partici- pant’s address, except in limited circumstances, including “[u]pon receipt of a court order signed by a judge pursuant to a finding of good cause.” ORS 192.848(1)(a). For purposes of that statute, “[g]ood cause exists when disclosure is sought for a lawful purpose that outweighs the risk of the disclo- sure.” Id. Moreover, “[i]f a judge finds that good cause exists, the terms of the court order shall address, as much as prac- ticable, the safety and protection of the program partici- pant.” Id. Mother contends that the trial court erred by fail- ing to evaluate the statutory factors and protective mea- sures contemplated by ORS 192.848. We agree. In response to mother’s objection to disclosure of her and the children’s shared address, the trial court found that the children were not at risk of harm by father, but at no point did the court inquire about or make any findings with regard to risks to mother, nor did its order requiring disclosure mention mother’s safety and protection. We therefore reverse and remand the order requiring the disclosure of mother’s address. Reversed and remanded.