This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A14-0315
In the Matter of: Gina Marie Johnson, individually and on behalf of Mickey Steele Sullivan, et al., petitioner, Respondent,
vs.
Jacob Khamis Johnson, Appellant.
Filed October 6, 2014 Affirmed Reyes, Judge
Dodge County District Court File No. 20FA13941
Gina Marie Johnson, Dodge Center, Minnesota (pro se respondent)
David L. Liebow, Restovich, Braun & Associates, Rochester, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge; Reilly, Judge; and
Reyes, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
REYES, Judge
On appeal from the district court’s grant of a domestic abuse order for protection
under Minn. Stat. § 518B.01 (2012), appellant argues that the district court erred by
(1) failing to hold a sufficient hearing; (2) finding evidence sufficient to grant the order
for protection; and (3) failing to make sufficient findings to support the order. We affirm. FACTS
In December 2013, respondent Gina Marie Johnson (wife) petitioned the district
court for an order for protection (OFP) from appellant Jacob Khamis Johnson (husband)
on behalf of herself and her seven children. In the documents submitted to the court, wife
explained that husband had been abusive toward her and her children, five of whom are
biologically husband’s, and that she previously obtained OFPs against husband in 2010
and 2011. In an affidavit, wife explained that a child-in-need-of-protection-or-services
(CHIPS) case was opened in 2010, and husband was charged criminally with sexually
abusing her children, but that the charges were dropped because her son could not testify.
Husband and wife, who married in 2002, divorced in 2012.
During the summer of 2013, husband and wife rekindled their relationship after
husband apologized for his past behavior. In September 2013, wife and husband
remarried, but did not live together, and husband was supervised while with the children.
In her affidavit, wife stated that within a short time after remarrying husband, he began to
exhibit signs of his past abusive behavior by yelling at the children, grabbing her arm,
and touching her sexually while she slept. Wife indicated that she believed the domestic
abuse would continue. She stated that she had not talked to husband much since
November 2013 but that he had come to her house on two occasions and driven by the
house on other occasions. At the time that wife filed the petition, another CHIPS case
had been opened because of husband’s conduct.
The same day that wife filed her petition, the district court granted her an
emergency (ex parte) OFP on behalf of herself and her children, effective for two years.
2 The order restricted husband from committing acts of abuse against wife and her children
or having any contact with them, except as ordered as part of the ongoing CHIPS file. It
also excluded husband from wife’s residence, Triton schools, and Dodge Center.
Husband requested an evidentiary hearing on the OFP. At the hearing, husband
was represented by counsel, and wife appeared pro se. The district court asked questions
of both parties, who were sworn, and allowed each individual an opportunity to add more
detail. No other testimony was taken nor was there evidence submitted. After the
hearing, the district court issued an order reaffirming the ex-parte domestic-abuse OFP,
“[b]ased on the [a]ffidavit and [p]etition for an [o]rder for [p]rotection, the hearing held,
and all of the files and records.” Husband requested permission to file a motion for
reconsideration under Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 115.11, contending that wife’s request was
based on prior abuse without any description of recent abuse or reasons for fearing
husband. Husband also asserted that the district court failed to make the necessary
findings of domestic abuse and contained an overbroad geographical exclusion. The
district court denied husband’s request to file a motion for reconsideration. This appeal
followed.
DECISION
The district court may grant an OFP to prevent a party “from committing acts of
domestic abuse.” Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 6(a)(1) (2012). The court may grant an
ex parte OFP where the petitioner “alleges an immediate and present danger of domestic
abuse.” Id., subd. 7(a) (2012). “As a remedial statute, the Domestic Abuse Act receives
liberal construction” in favor of the injured person. Swenson v. Swenson, 490 N.W.2d
3 668, 670 (Minn. App. 1992). Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 5 (2012), affords the right to a
hearing on an OFP issued under the domestic-abuse act.
I. Hearing
Husband argues that he did not receive a full hearing as required by the domestic-
abuse act because he was not allowed to call witnesses, present evidence other than his
own testimony, or cross-examine wife. We disagree.
We note that husband failed to raise this issue in district court. He attempts to
explain away this failure by contending that “[t]he district court tightly controlled the
proceedings from the very beginning,” and it stated that a written order would be issued
in due course, “an obvious sign that the district court considered the evidentiary portion
of the hearing complete,” “effectively adjourn[ing] the hearing.” But, while he contends
that there was not a “momentary opening to tell the district court of a party’s intentions”
to present additional evidence, husband admits that the district court asked husband’s
counsel whether there was anything to be discussed, raising the opportunity for an
objection to the hearing process. Moreover, husband wrote to the district court after the
hearing, raising other objections, but he failed to raise this issue and give the court an
opportunity to consider his objection to the process itself. As a result of husband’s failure
to raise this issue with the district court, it is waived. Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580,
582 (Minn. 1988).
Even if we consider the merits of husband’s claim, we find that husband waived
his right to present additional evidence. “The right to a ‘full hearing’ on the domestic
abuse allegations includes the right to present and cross-examine witnesses, to produce
4 documents, and to have the case decided on the merits.” El Nashaar v. El Nashaar, 529
N.W.2d 13, 14 (Minn. App. 1995). Husband asserts that the district court did not just fail
to invite the parties to cross-examine the opposing witness but contends that “the record
makes clear that the district court [] moved through the hearing in such a way that there
was no such right afforded.” However, “[a]lthough a petitioner in an OFP proceeding is
entitled to a hearing, the failure to request a particular procedure, such as cross-
examination, constitutes waiver.” Beardsley v. Garcia, 731 N.W.2d 843, 850 (Minn.
App. 2007), aff’d, 753 N.W.2d 735 (Minn. 2008).
Husband never requested the opportunity to cross-examine wife or to present
additional evidence at the hearing. The record demonstrates that husband had multiple
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A14-0315
In the Matter of: Gina Marie Johnson, individually and on behalf of Mickey Steele Sullivan, et al., petitioner, Respondent,
vs.
Jacob Khamis Johnson, Appellant.
Filed October 6, 2014 Affirmed Reyes, Judge
Dodge County District Court File No. 20FA13941
Gina Marie Johnson, Dodge Center, Minnesota (pro se respondent)
David L. Liebow, Restovich, Braun & Associates, Rochester, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge; Reilly, Judge; and
Reyes, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
REYES, Judge
On appeal from the district court’s grant of a domestic abuse order for protection
under Minn. Stat. § 518B.01 (2012), appellant argues that the district court erred by
(1) failing to hold a sufficient hearing; (2) finding evidence sufficient to grant the order
for protection; and (3) failing to make sufficient findings to support the order. We affirm. FACTS
In December 2013, respondent Gina Marie Johnson (wife) petitioned the district
court for an order for protection (OFP) from appellant Jacob Khamis Johnson (husband)
on behalf of herself and her seven children. In the documents submitted to the court, wife
explained that husband had been abusive toward her and her children, five of whom are
biologically husband’s, and that she previously obtained OFPs against husband in 2010
and 2011. In an affidavit, wife explained that a child-in-need-of-protection-or-services
(CHIPS) case was opened in 2010, and husband was charged criminally with sexually
abusing her children, but that the charges were dropped because her son could not testify.
Husband and wife, who married in 2002, divorced in 2012.
During the summer of 2013, husband and wife rekindled their relationship after
husband apologized for his past behavior. In September 2013, wife and husband
remarried, but did not live together, and husband was supervised while with the children.
In her affidavit, wife stated that within a short time after remarrying husband, he began to
exhibit signs of his past abusive behavior by yelling at the children, grabbing her arm,
and touching her sexually while she slept. Wife indicated that she believed the domestic
abuse would continue. She stated that she had not talked to husband much since
November 2013 but that he had come to her house on two occasions and driven by the
house on other occasions. At the time that wife filed the petition, another CHIPS case
had been opened because of husband’s conduct.
The same day that wife filed her petition, the district court granted her an
emergency (ex parte) OFP on behalf of herself and her children, effective for two years.
2 The order restricted husband from committing acts of abuse against wife and her children
or having any contact with them, except as ordered as part of the ongoing CHIPS file. It
also excluded husband from wife’s residence, Triton schools, and Dodge Center.
Husband requested an evidentiary hearing on the OFP. At the hearing, husband
was represented by counsel, and wife appeared pro se. The district court asked questions
of both parties, who were sworn, and allowed each individual an opportunity to add more
detail. No other testimony was taken nor was there evidence submitted. After the
hearing, the district court issued an order reaffirming the ex-parte domestic-abuse OFP,
“[b]ased on the [a]ffidavit and [p]etition for an [o]rder for [p]rotection, the hearing held,
and all of the files and records.” Husband requested permission to file a motion for
reconsideration under Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 115.11, contending that wife’s request was
based on prior abuse without any description of recent abuse or reasons for fearing
husband. Husband also asserted that the district court failed to make the necessary
findings of domestic abuse and contained an overbroad geographical exclusion. The
district court denied husband’s request to file a motion for reconsideration. This appeal
followed.
DECISION
The district court may grant an OFP to prevent a party “from committing acts of
domestic abuse.” Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 6(a)(1) (2012). The court may grant an
ex parte OFP where the petitioner “alleges an immediate and present danger of domestic
abuse.” Id., subd. 7(a) (2012). “As a remedial statute, the Domestic Abuse Act receives
liberal construction” in favor of the injured person. Swenson v. Swenson, 490 N.W.2d
3 668, 670 (Minn. App. 1992). Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 5 (2012), affords the right to a
hearing on an OFP issued under the domestic-abuse act.
I. Hearing
Husband argues that he did not receive a full hearing as required by the domestic-
abuse act because he was not allowed to call witnesses, present evidence other than his
own testimony, or cross-examine wife. We disagree.
We note that husband failed to raise this issue in district court. He attempts to
explain away this failure by contending that “[t]he district court tightly controlled the
proceedings from the very beginning,” and it stated that a written order would be issued
in due course, “an obvious sign that the district court considered the evidentiary portion
of the hearing complete,” “effectively adjourn[ing] the hearing.” But, while he contends
that there was not a “momentary opening to tell the district court of a party’s intentions”
to present additional evidence, husband admits that the district court asked husband’s
counsel whether there was anything to be discussed, raising the opportunity for an
objection to the hearing process. Moreover, husband wrote to the district court after the
hearing, raising other objections, but he failed to raise this issue and give the court an
opportunity to consider his objection to the process itself. As a result of husband’s failure
to raise this issue with the district court, it is waived. Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580,
582 (Minn. 1988).
Even if we consider the merits of husband’s claim, we find that husband waived
his right to present additional evidence. “The right to a ‘full hearing’ on the domestic
abuse allegations includes the right to present and cross-examine witnesses, to produce
4 documents, and to have the case decided on the merits.” El Nashaar v. El Nashaar, 529
N.W.2d 13, 14 (Minn. App. 1995). Husband asserts that the district court did not just fail
to invite the parties to cross-examine the opposing witness but contends that “the record
makes clear that the district court [] moved through the hearing in such a way that there
was no such right afforded.” However, “[a]lthough a petitioner in an OFP proceeding is
entitled to a hearing, the failure to request a particular procedure, such as cross-
examination, constitutes waiver.” Beardsley v. Garcia, 731 N.W.2d 843, 850 (Minn.
App. 2007), aff’d, 753 N.W.2d 735 (Minn. 2008).
Husband never requested the opportunity to cross-examine wife or to present
additional evidence at the hearing. The record demonstrates that husband had multiple
opportunities to interject with these requests before the hearing was adjourned, but he
failed to do so. On multiple occasions, the court asked husband and his counsel if they
had anything to add. Additionally, husband’s counsel raised other issues, such as the
impact of the OFP on the ongoing CHIPS proceeding, and he inquired whether the ex
parte order would remain in effect. While husband did have a right to present additional
evidence and cross-examine wife at the hearing, his failure to request these particular
procedures served as a waiver. On this record, husband waived any objections to the
adequacy of the hearing under the domestic-abuse act.
II. Sufficiency of evidence and findings
Husband argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the OFP because
the evidence does not demonstrate that wife was in imminent danger of domestic abuse
by husband. He also contends that the district court did not make findings sufficient to
5 support the grant of an OFP because it did not make findings about domestic abuse.
These arguments are unavailing.
We review a district court’s decision to grant an OFP for an abuse of discretion.
Pechovnik v. Pechovnik, 765 N.W.2d 94, 98 (Minn. App. 2009). The district court
“abuses its discretion if its findings are unsupported by the record or if it misapplies the
law.” Id. (quotation omitted). On appeal, we “review the record in the light most
favorable to the district court’s findings, and we will reverse those findings only if we are
left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Id. at 99
(quotation omitted). “We will not reverse merely because we view the evidence
differently.” Id. (quotation omitted). We neither “reconcile conflicting evidence nor
decide issues of witness credibility, which are exclusively the province of the factfinder.”
Id. (quotation omitted).
Minn. Stat. § 518B.01 permits the district court to issue an initial OFP on a finding
of domestic abuse. However, “a petitioner need not allege or show ‘domestic abuse’ in
order to extend the relief granted in an existing OFP or to obtain a new OFP if
petitioner’s OFP is no longer in effect when an application for subsequent relief is made.”
Id. at 98 (citation omitted). Instead, “[t]he court may extend the terms of an existing
order or, if an order is no longer in effect, grant a new order upon a showing that . . . . the
petitioner is reasonably in fear of physical harm from the respondent[.]” Minn. Stat.
§ 518B.01, subd. 6a(a) (2012).
Husband’s arguments about insufficient evidence and findings are based on the
misapprehension that the statute requires a finding of domestic abuse. But “[a] petitioner
6 does not need to show that physical harm is imminent to obtain an extension or a
subsequent order.” Id. Instead, “the petitioner need only show reasonable fear of
physical harm” for an extension or subsequent order to be issued. Ekman v. Miller, 812
N.W.2d 892, 895 (Minn. App. 2012). Because wife had previously obtained two OFPs
against husband, she was only required to show that she had a reasonable fear of physical
harm by husband in order to obtain another OFP against him. There is no authority to
suggest that the parties’ remarriage or any set lapse in time negates the applicability of
Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 6a(a)(2) and Ekman.
During the hearing, wife gave the following testimony about why she requested
the OFP:
WIFE: [I]f there’s even one chance that [husband] could harm the kids again, it is my job to protect my children. So I can’t have him near us. COURT: Okay. Do you have fear of Mr. Johnson abusing you? WIFE: Yes. COURT: Tell me about that. WIFE: I think a lot of it’s mentally. COURT: Okay. When was the last time you had been involved in, if ever, domestic abuse, physical abuse involving [husband]? WIFE: During our last marriage. COURT: How long ago? WIFE: Um, . . . he did grab me and say, You never change. And that was this marriage. The previous marriage before, which would have been four years ago. .... COURT: . . . So the last issue of actual physical abuse was several years ago? WIFE: Yes.
7 COURT: And when was the last time that you and [husband] were involved in some form of conduct that caused you fear of physical abuse? WIFE : After we were married the second time. COURT: How long ago? WIFE: It would have been October [2013].
In her affidavit, wife also attested that, in the months before she applied for the current
OFP, husband had (1) yelled at the children; (2) touched her sexually while she slept;
(3) exhibited behavior consistent with his past abuse; (4) grabbed her arm; and
(5) stopped and drove by her house since she stopped seeing him. Husband denied all
allegations of domestic abuse or violence, past and present, saying that he and wife may
have argued, but he never harmed her. But issues of credibility are the province of the
factfinder, Pechovnik, 765 N.W.2d at 99, and the district court’s order granting the
current OFP demonstrates that it found wife’s testimony to be more credible than
husband’s.
While actual findings from the district court would be preferable, there is no
statutory or case-law authority requiring specific findings when issuing a subsequent
OFP. The oral and written evidence presented by wife supports the implicit finding that
she had a reasonable fear of harm by husband. See Mechtel v. Mechtel, 528 N.W.2d 916,
919 (Minn. App. 1995) (providing that when an OFP is issued after a hearing is held, the
issuance of the ex parte OFP should be “treated as an implicit finding of probable cause
of physical abuse,” if the record supports such findings and the specific findings made by
the district court do not conflict with such implicit findings). Husband engaged in
domestic abuse against wife and her children in the past, as established by the earlier
8 OFPs, and he began exhibiting similar abusive behavior in the months leading up to the
current OFP petition. Additionally, he continued to show up at or near her house even
though she had decided to stop seeing him. Because (1) the district court implicitly found
wife more credible than husband; (2) wife had two previous OFPs against husband; and
(3) the evidence supports an implicit finding that wife had a reasonable fear of harm, we
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting wife and her
children an OFP against husband.
Affirmed.