In re the Matter of: Karolina Perminova, for self and o/b/o minor, petitioner, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A19-1885

In re the Matter of:
Karolina Perminova, for self and o/b/o minor, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Oleksander Perminov,
Appellant.

Filed September 8, 2020
Affirmed
Halbrooks, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-DA-FA-19-5693

Karolina Perminova, Long Lake, Minnesota (pro se respondent)

James Heiberg, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Jesson, Pres iding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Halbrooks,
Judge.

 Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Ap peals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
HALBROOKS, Judge
Appellant challenges the grant of an or der for protection (OFP), arguing that the
record does not support the district court’s findings and that the district court failed to make
sufficient findings to support the issuance of the OFP. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant-husband Oleksander Perminov and respondent-wife Karolina Perminova
were married on October 30, 2 009, and have one minor child. The parties are originally
from Ukraine and came to the United States as refugees in the spring of 2019. On August
27, 2019, wife filed for an OF P against husband on behalf of herself and the minor child.
She alleged that husband had forced her to have nonconsensual sex on multiple occasions
and that she was afraid for herself and her ch ild. She alleged that her husband threatened
her and told her that, if she filed for divor ce, she and their child would be deported and
forced to return to Ukraine. She also alleged that husband’s family, who lives in
Minnesota, attacked her on August 24 and that he did nothing to protect her. Based on
these allegations, the district court issued an ex parte OFP.
On September 24, 2019, the district court held an evidentiary hearing. At the
hearing, wife testified that husband forced her to have nonconsens ual sex “[p]ractically
every other day” since coming to the United States and up to twice a day in the Ukraine.
She testified that when the parties came to the United St ates, they relied on public-
assistance benefits because neither was empl oyed and that husband would not allow her
access to the EBT card to make purchases. Sh e alleged that husband had physically hurt

3
their child and testified to one specific inci dent in which her husband pushed the child’s
head into the floor. She also indicated that husband would hit her in front of the child.
Husband denied the allegations. He asserted that he had never forced wife to have
sexual intercourse against her will and that their relationship was based on “mutual
agreements” that included intimacy and purchases. When asked whether he hit the child’s
head against the floor, he indicated that the incident his wife desc ribed was “something
that did happen,” but gave a different explanation in which the child’s head got stuck on a
playground structure, husband di d not admit to hittin g the child’s head against the floor.
Husband also called four witnesses who testifie d that they had not ob served any signs of
domestic abuse during the parties’ marriage.
On September 25, 2019, the district court issued an OFP against husband on behalf
of wife and the child. The district court explicitly credited wife’s testimony and found that
husband’s testimony was “less credible with re spect to [wife’s] allegations of domestic
abuse.” The district court determined that wife’s testimony established that domestic abuse
had been committed, and, therefore, wife ha d met her evidentiary burden to support the
issuance of an OFP. Husband appeals.
D E C I S I O N
We review a district court’s decision to gr ant an OFP for an abuse of discretion.
Ekman v. Miller, 812 N.W.2d 892, 895 (Mi nn. App. 2012). The dist rict court abuses its
discretion if its factual findings are unsupported by the record or if it misapplies the law.
Pechovnik v. Pechovnik, 765 N.W.2d 94, 98 (Minn. App. 2009). We view the record in
the light most favorable to the district court’s findings and will reverse only if we are “left

4
with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Braend ex rel. Minor
Children v. Braend, 721 N.W.2d 924, 927 (Minn. App. 2006) (quotation omitted). And
we will not make credibility determinations or reconcile conflicting evidence. Aljubailah
ex rel. A. M. J. v. James, 903 N.W.2d 638, 643 (Minn. App. 2017).
The Minnesota Domestic Abuse Act provides that a district court may issue an OFP
upon a finding of domestic abuse. Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 4 (2018). Domestic abuse
includes, “if committed against a family or household member by a family or household
member,” “physical harm, bodily injury, or assault,” “criminal sexual conduct,” as well as
“the infliction of fear of imminent physical harm, bod ily injury, or assault.”
Id., subd. 2(a)(1)-(3) (2018). An OFP petitioner has the burde n of proving th at domestic
abuse did occur. Oberg v. Bradley, 868 N.W.2d 62, 64 (Minn. App. 2015). Once a district
court determines that domestic abuse has been established, it may “examine all of the
relevant circumstances proven to determine whether to gran t or deny the petition for an
OFP.” Thompson ex rel. Minor Child v. Schrimsher, 906 N.W.2d 495, 500 (Minn. 2018).
Husband argues that the district court a bused its discretion because there is not
sufficient credible evid ence to support the i ssuance of the OFP. At the hearing, wife
testified that husband forced her to have nonconsensual sex “[p]ractically every other day”
and twice a day before the parties moved to the United States. She also testified to incidents
of physical violence against both her and th eir child. The district court explicitly found
wife’s “affidavit and oral testimony to be credible” and husband’s testimony “to be less
credible with respect to [wife’s] allegations of domestic abuse.” This credited testimony
establishes that domestic abuse as defined by the statute occurred.

5
Husband argues that the district court abused its discretion by crediting wife’s
testimony. He argues that in doing so the district court improperly “massag[ed] and
reshap[ed]” her testimony because, when making its oral findings, the district court only
determined “that several acts of domestic vi olence occurred over an extended period” of
time rather than adopting wife’s testimony th at the domestic abuse occurred daily. He
asserts that the district court “ignored the fantastical nature of [wife’s] sworn statements
and tried to make them more believable” and asks this court to reverse the OFP because it
is based on “less-than-credible testimony.” But as stated above, this court does not make
credibility determinations and will not reconcile conflicting evidence. Aljubailah, 903
N.W.2d at 643. And we note that, in its subsequent written order, the district court
summarized wife’s testimony and again determin ed that it was credible. Because wife’s
testimony establishes that husband committed domestic abuse ag ainst her and the district
court credited her testimony, there is sufficien t credible evidence to support the issuance
of the OFP.
Husband also contends that the district court failed to make the required finding that
the OFP was necessary because violence was likely to reoccur. We disagree. The district
court’s order contains findings that the safety of wife and the child require that wife be
granted sole custody of the child and that the safety of wife and the child will be jeopardized
by husband being granted unsupervised parenting time. Thus, the district court determined

6
that husband was a present danger to wife and the child’s safety and that the OFP and
parenting-time restriction were necessary to protect them from further violence from
husband. On this record, the district court did not abuse its discretion by issuing the OFP.
Affirmed.