Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Set Aside Contempt Provisions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judiciary committee advances bill tightening set-aside eligibility after contempt findings related to protection orders
Summary
The committee forwarded House Bill 2492A to the Senate floor with a due-pass recommendation after members debated whether the bill’s five-year set-aside restriction should include elder-abuse protection orders that are primarily financial in nature.
The Senate Committee on Judiciary on May 14 moved House Bill 2492A to the floor with a due-pass recommendation after debate over how the bill treats findings of contempt for violations of protection orders, including elder-abuse orders.
House Bill 2492A clarifies when a person may file to set aside a conviction based on a shortened timeline tied to reduced convictions and excludes traffic violations from eligibility. The measure amends ORS 137.225 to allow a person found in contempt for violating a court order related to abuse to apply for an order to set aside the contempt finding five years from the date of the finding or from release from any jail served as part of that sentence, provided the person has fully complied with the sentence and is otherwise eligible. The measure also prohibits issuance of an order to set aside if, at the time of filing, the person has pending allegations of contempt related to abuse or a person crime.
Jillian (committee counsel) summarized the bill and said it defines “order related to abuse or a person crime” and that the bill came to the committee from the House with a floor vote of 56 ayes and 1 nay and a minimal fiscal impact.
Committee discussion focused on whether the bill should apply to violations of elder-abuse protection orders, including those that address financial exploitation. Senator McLean said she feared the bill was “overbroad” if it covered elder financial-protection orders because family disputes over money can produce such orders and she questioned the evidence connecting financial elder-abuse restraining-order violations to future physical violence. Sybil Hebb of the Oregon Law Center told the committee that in the center’s experience, violations of protection orders — including those issued under elder-abuse statutes — often co-occur with other abusive behaviors and that violations indicate a higher risk of future harm; she also noted citation to research in the legislative record.
Senators’ comments ranged from questioning the empirical link between financial elder-abuse orders and physical violence to describing the five-year waiting period as an “industry standard” for expungement contexts. After extended discussion, the chair called the question. The committee recorded aye votes sufficient to pass the motion to report the bill to the floor with a due-pass recommendation; Senator McLean recorded a “no” vote during the roll call. Senator Bridal (recorded as the designee) agreed to carry HB 2492A to the floor.
The committee also received clarifying remarks from staff noting that an order of contempt based on a violation requires that an underlying protective order first have been issued under ORS 124.010.
