Natasha Siefker Cook and o/b/o Minor Children, Respondent,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A23-0582

Natasha Siefker Cook and o/b/o Minor Children,
Respondent,

vs.

Tobin Jack Cook,
Appellant.

Filed December 26, 2023
Affirmed
Bratvold, Judge

St. Louis County District Court
File No. 69DU-CV-21-2354

Natasha Siefker Cook, Duluth, Minnesota (pro se respondent)

Tobin Jack Cook, Duluth, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Considered and decided by Bratvold, Presiding Judge; Reyes, Judge; and Smith,
Tracy M., Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
BRATVOLD, Judge
Appellant challenges a harassment restraining order (HRO) issued in favor of
respondent, his former spouse. Appellant argues that the district court erred by (1) finding
facts that are not supported by the record, (2) considering a letter written by a psychologist,
and (3) granting an HRO even though the evidence and factual findings did not support
doing so. Because we conclude that the record in this appeal supports the challenged factual
2
findings, the record does not show that the district court considered the letter, and the
district court did not abuse its discretion by granting the HRO, we affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Tobin Jack Cook and respondent Natasha Siefker Cook (Siefker) were
married in August 20 07 and dissolved their marriage in February 2021. They are the
parents of three children, of whom they share joint legal and joint physical custody.
Following many conflicts between Siefker and Cook relating to parenting the children,
Siefker petitioned for an HRO against Cook for herself and on behalf of their children on
December 6, 2021. In her verified petition, Siefker attested, among other things, that Cook
“pick[ed] up” the children “from [her] house” during her parenting time and without her
consent, entered her home without permission, and alienated the children from Siefker by
saying they are “unsafe when at [her] home” and providing a “secret phone” for the
children to call 911 or Cook. The district court denied Siefker’s request for an ex parte
HRO and ordered that the matter be scheduled for a hearing. Cook also petitioned for an
HRO against Siefker on October 13, 2022.
The same district court judge addressed both HRO petitions as well as other pending
motions in the parties’ dissolution case at an evidentiary hearing on November 28, 2022.
After the hearing, the district court dismissed Cook’s HRO petition and granted Siefker’s
HRO petition in part, issuing an HRO as to Siefker for a period of one year, to end March 1,
2024. The HRO did not include the children. The HRO included findings that “[t]here are
reasonable grounds to believe that [Cook] has engaged in harassment which has or is
intended to have a substantial adverse effect on safety, security or privacy of [Siefker]” by
3
(1) making “uninvited visits to [Siefker],” specifically, coming “to her home when asked
not to,” and (2) “[i]nterfer[ing] in [Siefker’s] relationship with the parties’ joint children
by engaging in overt chronic acts of parental alienation, including taking the children
during [Siefker’s] parenting time with her specific knowledge or express consent and by
inducing animosity between the children and [Siefker].”
1
Cook appeals.2
DECISION
We review a district court’s decision granting an HRO for an abuse of discretion.
Kush v. Mathison, 683 N.W.2d 841, 843 (Minn. App. 2004), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 29,
2004). “A district court abuses its discretion if it makes findings of fact that are not
supported by the record, misapplies the law, or resolves the matter in a manner that is
contrary to logic and the facts on record.” Borth v. Borth, 970 N.W.2d 699, 701 (Minn.
App. 2022) (quotation omitted). We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear
error and defer to the district court’s credibility determinations. Kush, 683 N.W.2d at
843-44.
“Findings of fact . . . shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard
shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.”
Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01. A finding is clearly erroneous only if it is “manifestly contrary to”

1 The district court’s finding states that Cook took the children “with” Siefker’s knowledge
or consent. This appears to be a clerical error, as discussed below.

2 Cook also appealed the district court’s order denying his motion in the parties’ dissolution
case, which is submitted to a different panel for decision.
4
or “not reasonably supported by” the evidence. In re Civ. Commitment of Kenney,
963 N.W.2d 214, 221 (Minn. 2021) (quotation omitted). An appellate court should “view
the evidence in a light favorable to the findings” and only conclude that findings are clearly
erroneous if, based “on the entire evidence, we are left with a definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed.” Id. (quotation omitted). Additionally, an appellate
court may not “engage in fact-finding anew, even if the court would find the facts to be
different if it determined them in the first instance.” Id. at 221-2 2 (quotation omitted).
Accordingly, an appellate court “need not go into an extended discussion of the evidence
to prove or demonstrate the correctness of the findings of the trial court.” Id. at 222
(quotation omitted).
Cook is self-represented on appeal, and Siefker did not submit a brief. We decide
this appeal on the merits under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 142.03, which provides that “[i]f the
respondent fails or neglects to serve and file its brief, the case shall be determined on the
merits.” In his brief submitted to this court, Cook argues the district court issued the HRO
“based on erroneous findings,” relied on “a county psychologist[’s]” letter that “is not
sufficient evidence to find [Cook] guilty of harassment,” and “delivered a decision that is
contrary to the facts and against logic.” We address each of Cook’s three arguments.
I. The record supports the district court’s factual findings.
Cook argues that the HRO was “based on erroneous findings” and makes two main
points, which we discuss in turn. First, Cook contends that the HRO should have been
dismissed because he “understood” that the parties agreed “he would be dismissing his
restraining order against [Siefker], if she would be dismissing her petition against him.”
5
Cook does not cite the record, and our review of the record yielded nothing to support this
claim; therefore, we do not discuss it further.
Second, Cook contends that the district court erred in making specific factual
findings about Cook making uninvited visits to Siefker’s home, alienating the children
from Siefker, and “taking” the children during Siefker’s parenting time. Before analyzing
each of the challenged factual findings, we consider what compri ses the record in this
appeal. The appellate record consists of “[t]he documents filed in the trial court, the
exhibits, and the transcript of the proceedings.” Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 110.01. The
appellant has the duty to order any transcript “deemed necessary for inclusion in the
record.” Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 110.02, subd. 1(a). Thus, the appellant “has the burden to
provide an adequate record” for the appeal. Mesenbourg v. Mesenbourg, 538 N.W.2d 489,
494 (Minn. App. 1995). The record must be “sufficient to show the alleged errors and all
matters necessary for consideration of the questions presented.” Truesdale v. Friedman ,
127 N.W.2d 277, 279 (Minn. 1964).
When there is an evidentiary hearing, appellate courts cannot review a party’s
argument that the other party did not prove its factual claims if no transcript is ordered. See
Custom Farm Servs., Inc. v. Collins, 238 N.W.2d 608, 609 (Minn. 1976) (stating that
“[b]ecause of the absence of a transcript of the district court proceedings, [the supreme
court] cannot consider” several errors that the appellants contend occurred, including
“sufficiency of the evidence”). When a transcript is not included in the record, this court’s
task is “limited to determining whether the trial court’s findings of fact support its
6
conclusions of law.” Am. Fam. Life Ins. Co. v. Noruk, 528 N.W.2d 921, 925 (Minn. App.
1995), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 27, 1995).
In this appeal, Cook did not provide this court with a certified copy of the
evidentiary-hearing transcript as specified in Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 110.02, subd. 1(a),
which requires that an appellant order any transcripts to be included in the record from the
court reporter. We note that Cook included a certified copy of the evidentiary-hearing
transcript as part of the addendum he filed with his brief to this court; Cook, however, did
not order that transcript for this appeal . In addition, no certificate as to transcript or
certificate of filing and delivery of transcript was filed with the Clerk of the Appellate
Courts in this appeal. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 110.02, subd. 2(a)-(b). Because Cook
failed to order the evidentiary-hearing transcript and file a certificate with the Clerk of the
Appellate Courts for this appeal, the transcript is therefore not part of the record. See Minn.
R. Civ. App. P. 110.01.
We recognize that Cook is self-represented on appeal. “When an appellant acts as
attorney pro se, appellate courts are disposed to disregard defects in the brief, but that does
not relieve appellants of the necessity of providing an adequate record and preserving it in
a way that will permit review.” Thorp Loan & Thrift Co. v. Morse, 451 N.W.2d 361, 363
(Minn. App. 1990), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 13, 1990). By failing to order a certified copy
of the evidentiary-hearing transcript for this appeal, Cook did not provide an adequate
record for this court to review the district court’s factual findings in the HRO based on the
evidence received at the hearing. See Custom Farm Servs., 238 N.W.2d at 609. Thus, our
review of the district court’s HRO is limited to the record before us—which includes
7
Siefker’s verified petition and the HRO but does not include the transcript in the addendum
to Cook’s brief— and to determining whether the findings of fact support the conclusions
of law. See Noruk, 528 N.W.2d at 925.
Using the record in this appeal, we consider Cook’s challenges to the district court’s
factual findings. First, Cook argues that the district court erred by finding that he made
uninvited visits to Siefker’s home. The district court’s finding is supported by Siefker’s
sworn statements in her petition, in which she stated that Cook made uninvited visits to her
home from August through October 2021 when Cook returned the children to Siefker’s
home while she was not there.
Second, Cook argues that the district court erred by finding that he picked up the
children during Siefker’s parenting time and otherwise alienated the children from Siefker.
Cook included copies of text messages between Siefker and himself in his addendum and
contends that these text messages contradict the district court’s findings. Although the table
of contents for Cook’s addendum asserts that the text messages were “exhibits,” the text
messages are not included in the record for this appeal. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 110.01.
Thus, we do not consider them.
3
Based on our review of the record in this appeal, we conclude that it supports the
district court’s findings that Cook picked up the children without Siefker’s permission and

3 Even if we were to consider the text messages, we are not persuaded that they contradict
the district court’s findings or demonstrate error, because Cook provided text messages for
some, but not all, instances in which he picked up the children for parenting time. Even if
Cook had permission to pick up the children on some dates, the district court found that
Cook took the children without Siefker’s permission between August and October 2021,
and this finding is supported by Siefker’s verified petition.
8
engaged in conduct that alienated —or at least attempted to alienate—the children from
Siefker. Siefker’s petition attested to Cook picking up the children “without [her] consent”
from August to October 2021. Siefker also averred that Cook alienated her children from
her by “provid[ing] the kids with a secret phone,” encouraging them to “call 911 or him all
hours of the night stating they feel unsafe and want to go to dad’s,” refusing to participate
in court-ordered family therapy, and “us[ing] the kids to check up on [her] such as where
[is she], who [is she] with.” Thus, the record supports the district court’s factual findings
in the HRO.
II. The district court did not err by considering a county psychologist’s letter.
Cook argues that the district court erred when it considered a letter from a
psychologist for St. Louis County.4 Cook included this letter in the addendum he submitted
along with his brief to this court, but the letter is not part of the record for this appeal; thus,
we do not consider it. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 110.01.
Cook’s argument nonetheless lacks merit because the district court did not mention
the psychologist’s letter in the HRO, nor does the record indicate that the district court
considered this letter when reaching its conclusions. Thus, we reject Cook’s argument
about the county psychologist’s letter.

4 Cook argues that the district court improperly considered this letter because (1) the
psychologist failed to obtain informed consent from Cook and the children, (2) the letter is
inadmissible under Minn. S tat. § 595.02, subd. 1(g) (2022), and (3) the letter contains
inadmissible character evidence.
9
III. The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting the HRO.
Cook also argues that “the district court delivered a decision that is contrary to the
facts and against logic” for three reasons that we consider in turn.
First, Cook contends that, because the HRO did not restrict him from contacting the
children, this “proves that the allegation that [Cook] alienates the children or negatively
impacts the relationship between [Siefker] and the children is false and should not be a
basis for a restraining order.” Cook fails to provide any legal support or reasoning for this
argument. “An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any
argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal
unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” Schoepke v. Alexander Smith &
Sons Carpet Co., 187 N.W.2d 133, 135 (Minn. 1971); see State Dep’t of Lab. & Indus. by
the Special Comp. Fund v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., 558 N.W.2d 480, 480 (Minn. 1997)
(declining to reach issues inadequately briefed). We discern no error. Considering that the
parties share custody of the children, the district court had discretion to grant the HRO for
Siefker and not the children.
Second, Cook argues that the HRO relies on “information and evidence from the
[dissolution] case being on trial at the same time as this case” and that he should be
permitted to provide additional evidence to support his position on appeal. Cook’s
argument is not supported by the record, nor does he cite legal authority for supplementing
or modifying the record on appeal. See, e.g., Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 110.05 (providing that
a party may seek to correct or modify the record on appeal by submitting the request to the
district court).
10
Third, Cook argues that the district court expressly found that he took “the children
during [Siefker’s] parenting time with her specific knowledge or express consent, ” which
does not support granting the HRO. (Emphasis added.) Cook appears to be relying on a
clerical mistake in the district court’s order. A clerical mistake is a mistake “arising from
oversight or omission.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.01. This court can discern a clerical error based
on context when the error is clear from the record and cannot be attributed to judicial
discretion. State v. Verdon, 727 N.W.2d 418, 420 (Minn. App. 2007). When we read the
finding upon which Cook relies in context, however, it is clear that the district court found
that Cook took the children without Siefker’s permission because the same factual finding
states that Cook interfered in Siefker’s relationship with the joint children.
We also conclude that this clerical error is harmless. The mere existence of an error
is not sufficient to support relief on appeal; an appellant must also show that the error
prejudiced them. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored); Kallio
v. Ford Motor Co., 407 N.W.2d 92, 98 (Minn. 1987) (stating that “[a]lthough error may
exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal”); cf. Borth v. Borth ,
970 N.W.2d 699, 706 (Minn. App. 2022) (reversing and remanding the denial of an HRO
when the district court’s error was not harmless). While the HRO appears to include a
clerical error, the district court’s other factual findings support the HRO. Thus, even if we
disregard the finding related to Cook taking the children or assume that Cook took the
children with Siefker’s permission and consent, we would nonetheless affirm based on the
other findings about Cook’s uninvited visits to Siefker’s home and Cook’s alienation of
11
the children from Siefker. Accordingly, even if the district court made a clerical mistake,
the error is harmless.
Affirmed.