In 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A25-0619

In the Matter of:

Lydia Christine Holm-Kolodiazhna and
on behalf of Minor Child, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

James Edwin Gordy Jr.,
Appellant.

Filed December 15, 2025
Reversed
Johnson, Judge

Becker County District Court
File No. 03-FA-25-309

Lydia Christine Holm-Kolodiazhna, Detroit Lakes, Minnesota (pro se respondent)

James Edwin Gordy, Jr., Hawley, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Considered and decided by Reyes, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Johnson,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
JOHNSON, Judge
The mother of a young child petitioned the district court for an order for protection
(OFP) to protect the child from the child ’s father. The district court granted the petition
and issued an OFP . We conclude that the district court erred because its findings of fact
2
do not support its conclusion that the child’s father engaged in domestic abuse against the
child. Therefore, we reverse.
FACTS
Lydia Christine Holm-Kolodiazhna and James Edwin Gordy Jr. previously were in
a relationship and have one joint child: a now-eight-year-old daughter, G.H.G. Both Holm-
Kolodiazhna and Gordy are now married to other persons. Gordy has three other children,
including an adopted daughter, R.G, who is similar in age to G.H.G.
In February 2025, Holm-Kolodiazhna and Gordy were parties to a dispute
concerning custody of G.H.G., which was pending in the district court. On February 11,
2025, Holm-Kolodiazhna commenced a new case by filing a petition for an OFP. Holm-
Kolodiazhna alleged that, three days earlier, G.H.G. witnessed an incident in which Gordy
screamed, shouted, and swore at R.G. (Gordy’s other daughter of a similar age) and caused
R.G. to suffer a broken toe. Holm- Kolodiazhna also made allegations concerning prior
incidents.
The district court conducted a hearing on Holm-Kolodiazhna’s petition in March
2025. Both Gordy and Holm- Kolodiazhna appeared on a self-represented basis and
testified. Holm-Kolodiazhna also called two other witnesses: her husband, S.K., and
Gordy’s wife, M.I.
Three days after the hearing, the district court filed an order with findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and an order for protection. The district court ordered Gordy, for a
period of two years, to not commit domestic abuse against G.H.G., to not contact G.H.G.
except for supervised visitation every other weekend, and to stay at least 100 feet away
3
from G.H.G.’s residence. Gordy timely filed a motion to dismiss or modify the OFP, which
the district court denied. Gordy appeals.
DECISION
Gordy argues that the district court erred in numerous ways. His principal brief
identifies no fewer than 14 issues, some of which overlap with each other.
The Domestic Abuse Act authorizes a district court to issue an OFP to protect a
victim of domestic abuse. See generally Minn. Stat. § 518B.01 (2024); see also Schmidt
ex rel. P.M.S. v. Coons, 818 N.W.2d 523, 526-29 (Minn. 2012). The term “domestic abuse”
is defined by statute to mean, in relevant part, “(1) physical harm, bodily injury, or assault;
[or] (2) the infliction of fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, or assault.” Minn.
Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 2(a). To obtain an OFP, a petitioner must prove that the respondent
has committed domestic abuse “against the petitioner or the person on whose behalf the
petition is brought.” Schmidt, 818 N.W.2d at 527. This court applies an abuse-of -
discretion standard of review to a district court’s issuance of an OFP. Thompson v.
Schrimsher, 906 N.W.2d 495, 500 (Minn. 2018); Pechovnik v. Pechovnik, 765 N.W.2d 94,
98 (Minn. App. 2009).
We begin by considering Gordy’s argument that the district court erred by finding
that he committed domestic abuse against G.H.G. The district court found that domestic
abuse had occurred based on four paragraphs of findings describing two incidents: (1) a
February 2025 incident in which Gordy yelled at R.G., slammed a door on her foot, and
injured her toe; and (2) a June 2023 incident in which Gordy became upset and kicked a
hole in a bathroom wall.
4
With respect to the February 2025 incident, the district court described Gordy’s
conduct toward R.G. , stated that G.H.G. was present, and characterized the incident as
“chaotic and disruptive.” The district court found that G.H.G. said to Holm-Kolodiazhna,
“I’m just scared of Daddy.” Gordy contends that this finding is erroneous on the ground
that the statement was not made by G.H.G. Gordy is correct. Holm-Kolodiazhna testified
that R.G. (not G.H.G.) made the statement to M.I. (not Holm- Kolodiazhna). No witness
testified to the contrary. The district court clearly erred by attributing the statement to
G.H.G. Consequently, the statement cannot be the factual basis of a finding that Gordy
committed domestic abuse against G.H.G. during that incident by inflicting fear of
imminent harm, bodily injury, or assault.
In connection with the February 2025 incident, the district court also found that
G.H.G. “has told Lydia and Lydia’s husband . . . that she doesn ’t want to go to James ’s
house.” This finding, by itself, is incapable of proving that Gordy engaged in domestic
abuse of G.H.G. by causing physical harm, bodily injury, or assault or by inflicting fear of
imminent physical harm, bodily injury, or assault. See Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd.
2(a)(1)-(2). Furthermore, the evidence concerning G.H.G.’s statement would not support
such a finding. S.K. testified that G.H.G. said that she did not observe the incident in which
Gordy injured R.G.’s foot, and S.K. also testified that G.H.G. and R.G. appeared to be fine
later that day.
Thus, the district court’s specific findings concerning the February 2025 incident
cannot support an ultimate finding that Gordy committed domestic abuse against G.H.G.
5
With respect to the June 2023 incident, the district court found that Gordy became
upset while in a bathroom, caused loud noises, and kicked a hole in a wall. Again, this
finding, by itself, is incapable of proving that Gordy engaged in domestic abuse of G.H.G.
by causing physical harm, bodily injury, or assault or by inflicting fear of imminent
physical harm, bodily injury, or assault. See id. Furthermore, the evidence concerning the
bathroom incident would not support such a finding. Holm-Kolodiazhna testified that
G.H.G. heard loud noises in the bathroom, but there is no indication that Gordy’s conduct
was directed at G.H.G. Thus, the district court’s findings concerning the June 2023
incident also cannot support an ultimate finding that Gordy committed domestic abuse
against G.H.G.
To reiterate, a petitioner cannot obtain an OFP without proving that the respondent
committed domestic abuse “against the petitioner or the person on whose behalf the petition
is brought.” Schmidt, 818 N.W.2d at 527. The evidence and findings in this case are
insufficient to establish that Gordy committed domestic abuse against G.H.G., the person
on whose behalf the petition was filed.
In sum, the district court erred by issuing the OFP because the district court’s
findings of fact do not support its conclusion that Gordy engaged in domestic abuse against
G.H.G. In light of our resolution of Gordy’s primary argument, we need not consider the
other arguments in Gordy’s brief.
Reversed.