In re the Matter of:

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A21-1591

In re the Matter of:

Heather McKaila Dehmer, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Matthew Paul Phelps,
Appellant.

Filed June 20, 2022
Affirmed
Jesson, Judge

Itasca County District Court
File No. 31-FA-21-1997

Heather Dehmer, Grand Rapids, Minnesota (pro se respondent)

Matthew Phelps, Bovey, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Considered and decided by Reyes, Presiding Judge; Jesson, Judge; and
Rodenberg, Judge.

NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
JESSON, Judge
The district court granted respondent Heather Dehmer’s petition for an Order for
Protection (OFP) after concluding that appellant Matthew Phelps had committed domestic

 Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of A ppeals, serving by appoi ntment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
2
abuse by threatening her. Phel ps contends that the record does not support this finding,
that the district court’s order is vague, that Dehmer’s counsel acte d unethically towards
him, that his evidence was not handled properly , and that the transcript is inaccurate.
Because the record supports the district court’s conclusion that Phelps committed domestic
abuse and because it does not support Phelps’s assertions of error, we affirm.
FACTS
In August 2021, Dehmer pe titioned for an OFP following a fight with Phelps. At
an evidentiary hearing, Dehmer testified that she had been in a relationship with Phelps
from 2016 through 2021. The parties moved into a house together in 2017 along with
Phelps’s dog and Dehmer’s four cats. In early 2021, Phelps joined the Army Reserve and
needed to undergo training at boot camp. Shortly before Phelps left for boot camp, Dehmer
decided to break up with him. Phelps did not take the breakup well, according to Dehmer.
Dehmer moved her belongings into a sepa rate bedroom the night that she broke up
with Phelps. Afterwards, while Dehmer was in the bedroom, Phelps stood outside the
room—blocking the doorway—berating her. De hmer testified that she stashed a knife
under her pillow because she was afraid that Phelps would en ter the room an d harm her.
Later that night, Phelps started to enter her room, but Dehmer reached for the knife under
her pillow, and he backed off. She testified that this behavior was out of character for
Phelps, and that it “terrified” her. Phelps left for boot camp two or three days after this
incident.
While he was in boot camp, Phelps repeat edly called Dehmer. She ignored the calls.
Eventually, he sent her a letter in which he stated that if he did not hear back from her, he
3
might “have to do something dr astic like leave [training].” When Phelps finished
bootcamp, he returned to the house that the parties shared. Dehmer testified that the
relationship was over and that she treated Phelps as just a roommate from then on.
Dehmer went on vacation in August and as ked a friend to take care of her cats in
her absence. But one of the cats began to ur inate in the hallway of the house, and Phelps
put the cat into a kennel. Dehmer returned home upon hearing this and confronted Phelps.
She testified that during the re sulting argument, Phelps said: “If you do not stop arguing
with me, one day you will disappear.” Dehmer took the statement as a threat to her life,
left the home, and called 911 from the side of the road. She testified that she requested the
OFP because she did not feel safe living in the same home as Phelps.
Phelps agreed with much of Dehmer’s te stimony. He admitted that he stood in the
doorway of Dehmer’s room while yelling at her and that the door is the only exit from the
bedroom. But he denied ma king any threats in the lette r he sent from bootcamp and
explained that he was mostly concerned about his dog’s wellbeing. And he reviewed some
text messages between himself and Dehmer that he alleged showed her being
psychologically abusive to him. Turning to the August fight, Phelps admitted that he said
that Dehmer “could go missing” if she kept yelling at him. But he testified that he did not
intend to scare Dehmer by doing so—he just wanted her to leave him alone.
In September 2021, the district court issu ed an OFP in favor of Dehmer. The court
found that Phelps committed domestic abuse by blocking Dehmer in the bedroom and
yelling at her during the pre-bootcamp fight, as well as by threatening her during the August
4
fight. The court awarded Dehmer the use a nd possession of the home . And Phelps was
ordered to not possess any firearms for the duration of the order.
Phelps appeals.
DECISION
Phelps contends that the record does not support the district court’s conclusion that
he committed domestic abuse against Dehmer. We review this grant of an OFP for an
abuse of discretion and defer to the district court’s dete rmination of the credibility of the
witnesses. Thompson v. Schrimsher, 906 N.W.2d 495, 500-01 (Minn. 2018). And we view
the record in the light most favorable to the district court’s findings and will reverse only
if we are firmly convinced that a mistake was made. Pechovnik v. Pechovnik ,
765 N.W.2d 94, 99 (Minn. App. 2009). With this standard in mind, we turn to the
definition of domestic abuse.
Here, Dehmer alleged that Phelps threaten ed her. An alleged victim of domestic
abuse can petition a district court for an OFP. Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 4 (2020). The
district court may issue the order if the petitioner demonstrates that domestic abuse
occurred. Id., subd. 6 (2020). Domestic abuse includes the infliction of fear of imminent
physical harm committed against a household member. Id., subd. 2(a)(2) (2020). And
persons who presently live togeth er or have lived together in the past are “household
members.” Id., subd. 2(b)(4) (2020). Having defined the type of domestic abuse applicable
here, we next consider Dehmer’s burden of proof.
As petitioner, Dehmer bore the burden of sh owing that it was more likely than not
that her fear of harm occurred. Oberg v. Bradley, 868 N.W.2d 62, 64 (Minn. App. 2015).
5
An OFP may be justified if a person manifests a present intention to inflict fear of imminent
physical harm, bodily injury, or assault on a household member. Pechovnik, 765 N.W.2d
at 99. No overt physical act is necessary for a district court to issue an OFP. Id. Mindful
of the above, we review the district court’s decision to grant Dehmer’s OFP petition.
Here, the record supports the district court’s decision to grant the OFP. Dehmer and
Phelps are household members because they resided togeth er. Minn. Stat. § 518B.01,
subd. 2(b)(4). Phelps admitte d blocking Dehmer in her bedroom and la ter saying to her
that if she kept yelling at him, she “could go missing like that.” Dehmer testified that she
was terrified by the bedroom incident, and that she took the “you could go missing”
statement as a threat against her life. After Phelps made the statement, Dehmer left the
home and called 911 from the side of the road. Dehmer testified that she did not feel safe
around Phelps. While Phelps explained that his only intention was to make Dehmer leave
him alone, he admitted on cross examination that, at the time, he thought he had to “say
something particularly mean to get [Dehmer] to leave [him] alone.” Viewing this record
in the light most favorable to the district court’s findings, and deferring to the court’s
credibility determinations, the di strict court did not clearly err in finding that Phelps’s
statement showed a presen t intent to inflict fear of harm in Dehmer. Pechovnik,
765 N.W.2d at 99. Accordingly, the district court acted within its discretion by issuing the
OFP.
Phelps’s arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive. First, he argues that the district
court’s order is vague, but the district court found two instances of abuse based on infliction
6
of imminent fear of harm: the pre-bootcamp fight, and the August fight. And the court’s
order identifies these two incidents in sufficient detail.
Second, Phelps contends that Dehmer’s counsel acted unethically towards him when
Dehmer’s counsel asked him the same question repeatedly. But counsel was attempting to
clarify Phelps’s state of mind at the time th at he stated that Dehmer “could go missing”
because Phelps testified that he had no inte ntion to scare her. The record reveals no
misconduct by counsel.
Third, Phelps asserts that the evidence he “submitted” to the referee was not handled
properly, in reference to the text-message exchange that he testified about and attached to
his appellate brief. But Phelps did not offer the text messages into evidence. Nor did the
referee accept them. Phelps has not shown an error in this regard.
Fourth, Phelps alleges that the transcript is inaccurate and that some of his
statements were “changed to be unfavorable or incoherent.” But he does not provide any
examples. And the record does not support the assertion that Phelps’s statements at the
hearing are incoherent.1
Finally, Phelps argues that the record does not support the referee’s conclusion that
he threatened Dehmer because he asserts that he never intended to cause her fear. But the
referee, after considering the testimony of both parties, determined that Dehmer’s
testimony was more credible and found that Phelps committed two acts of domestic abuse.

1 Still Phelps urges us to listen to the record ing of the hearing inst ead of relying on the
transcript, but the transcript—not the recording—is the official record of the proceedings,
and hearing. Minn. R. Pub. Access to Recs. of Jud. Branch 4, subd. 3(d); see Minn. R. Civ.
App. P. 110.01 (defining record on appeal).
7
We defer to such cred ibility determinations. Thompson, 906 N.W.2d at 500-01. And
Phelps’s statement that Dehmer could “go missing” shows a present intent to inflict fear of
imminent physical harm to a household member, even with out an overt physical act
accompanying the threat. Pechovnik, 765 N.W.2d at 99. Acco rdingly, Phelps has not
shown that the district court abused its discretion by granting the OFP in favor of Dehmer.
Affirmed.