The trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion to extend a Domestic Violence Protection Act injunction against her ex-lover. In evaluating whether to grant renewal of a DVRO, the question is whether a reasonable person, in the petitioner’s circumstances, would fear repetition of the abuse if the order expired. Petitioner only needs to demonstrate that it is more probable than not there is a sufficient risk of future abuse to find the protected party’s apprehension genuine and reasonable. Here, petitioner met that low burden. Before the original DVRO, defendant had assaulted petitioner with a kitchen knife, trying to kill her. Then defendant violated the DVRO several times by making threatening phone calls to petitioner.