Addressing Risks of Violence to Children and Adolescents Through Oregon’s Extreme Risk Protection Order Law

Acad Pediatr. 2025 Nov 6:103179. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2025.103179. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To describe how Oregon’s Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) law has been used to address risks of harm to children.

METHODS: ERPO petitions were obtained from the Oregon Judicial Department. Data were abstracted for 2018-2023. A 20% random sample of records was double-coded. Interrater agreement was >80% for key variables. Descriptive analyses compared petitions with, versus without, cited risks to children and adolescents.

RESULTS: Of the 835 ERPO petitions filed, 143 (17%) cited risks of harm to children. Petitions citing risks of harm to children were less likely to be granted (63%) compared to those without such risks (81%). Ex-spouses/ex-intimate partners, who do not have standing under Oregon’s law, made up a larger proportion of petitioners for petitions citing risks to children (16%) than those that did not involve children (5%). Petitions involving risks to children more commonly included threats to schools or universities (17%), mass violence threats (22%), and domestic violence (64%) than petitions without risks to children (1%, 9%, and 33%; respectively).

CONCLUSIONS: Oregon’s ERPO law is being used to try to avert harm to children, including threats of mass violence, school shootings, and domestic violence, but gaps may remain in individuals’ or families’ needs. Pediatricians and other healthcare professionals may be in a unique position to identify and address risks to children and their caregivers. Understanding how ERPOs can successfully address these risks to children – and how they are failing – may raise awareness of the tool among healthcare professionals, informing both clinical practice and policy advocacy.

PMID:41205919 | DOI:10.1016/j.acap.2025.103179