In the Matter of: Sarah Rose Vasquez on behalf of Minor Child v. Destiny Marie Rodriguez

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A26-0649

In the Matter of:

Sarah Rose Vasquez on behalf of Minor Child, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Destiny Marie Rodriguez,
Respondent.

Filed September 28, 2026
Affirmed
Bond, Judge

Kandiyohi County District Court
File No. 34-FA-25-295

Sarah Rose Vasquez, Willmar, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

John E. Mack, New London Law, P.A., New London, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Cochran, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Bond,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
BOND, Judge
Appellant-grandmother challenges the district court’s denial of her petition for an
order for protection (OFP) on behalf of her minor grandchild, arguing that the district court

2
judge was biased and that the record established that respondent -mother committed
domestic abuse against the child. We affirm.
FACTS
On November 24, 2025, appellant Sarah Rose Vasquez (grandmother) petitioned
for an ex parte OFP on behalf of her minor grandchild (the child) against the child’s mother,
respondent Destiny Marie Rodriguez (mother). The petition alleged that, when the child
visited grandmother after being in mother’s care, grandmother observed various injuries
on the child’s body, including bruises, rashes, scratches, and fingernail marks. The district
court denied the petition and scheduled a hearing.
The contested OFP hearing was held over two days on December 23, 2025, and
January 22, 2026. At the hearing, the district court heard testimony from eight witnesses,
including the child’s father, grandmother, and mother. At the time of the hearing, father
and mother were no longer in a relationship and were co-parenting the child. The court
received over 55 exhibits into evidence, including photographs and videos taken by
grandmother purporting to show the child’s injuries. Grandmother testified she made
multiple reports to child-protection services based on the same evidence she submitted at
the OFP hearings, but those reports “seem[ed] to go nowhere.”
Father testified that mother provided excellent care for the child and that he believed
grandmother filed the OFP in retaliation against him. Both mother and father testified that
they had witnessed the child engage in self-harming behaviors when she became
overstimulated. Mother testified that she had taken the child to see a therapist at the
Jefferson Learning Center to help with these behaviors. Mother explained that there were

3
innocent explanations for the injuries depicted in grandmother’s photographs, such as
diaper rash and scratches from bug bites. Mother testified that the child acted as “a typical
two-year-old”—bumping into things, falling over, running, jumping, and throwing
things—which at times caused minor injuries. The district court received as an exhibit a
letter from Kandiyohi County Health and Human Services determining that its
investigation had yielded no evidence of maltreatment, child-protection services were not
needed, and there was insufficient evidence to “support a finding of neglect or physical
abuse” or to determine “if the child was physically abused and by who.”
The district court denied grandmother’s OFP petition in a written order, determining
that grandmother presented insufficient evidence to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that domestic abuse had occurred or that mother was the perpetrator of abuse.
Grandmother appeals.
DECISION
I. The record does not support grandmother’s claim that the district court judge
was biased.

Grandmother argues that the district court demonstrated bias against her. Minnesota
judges are required to perform their duties “without bias or prejudice.” Minn. Code Jud.
Conduct Rule 2.3(A); see also State v. Burrell, 743 N.W.2d 596, 601 (Minn. 2008) (stating
that a judge must perform the duties of the office impartially). Appellate courts presume
that district court judges properly discharge all judicial duties. Hannon v. State, 752
N.W.2d 518, 522 (Minn. 2008). “Whether a judge has violated the Code of Judicial

4
Conduct is a question of law, which [appellate courts] review de novo.” State v. Dorsey,
701 N.W.2d 238, 246 (Minn. 2005).
Grandmother identifies multiple instances of alleged bias. First, grandmother
argues that the district court exhibited bias by removing her as a petitioner in a separate
custody proceeding. Grandmother does not appeal from the district court’s custody
determination, and the custody-related documents grandmother relies on are not part of the
record on appeal in this case. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 110.01 (stating that the appellate
record is limited to “documents filed in the trial court, the exhibits, and the transcript of the
proceedings, if any”); Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582-83 (Minn. 1988) (stating that
“[a]n appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside of the record on appeal,
and may not consider matters not produced and received in evidence below”).
Accordingly, we decline to consider this argument.
Second, grandmother asserts that the district court demonstrated bias by determining
that she failed to prove that acts of domestic abuse had occurred or that mother committed
those acts by a preponderance of the evidence. Adverse rulings are not a basis for imputing
bias to a judge. See Olson v. Olson, 392 N.W.2d 338, 341 (Minn. App. 1986); see also
Burrell, 743 N.W.2d at 601-02 (“The mere fact that a party declares a judge partial does
not in itself generate a reasonable question as to the judge ’s impartiality.”). The district
court judge heard testimony from multiple witnesses, reviewed numerous exhibits, and
considered the arguments of the parties before dismissing grandmother’s OFP petition.
The district court judge did not show bias in its ruling.

5
Third, grandmother claims that the district court was biased in its subpoena rulings.
On the day of the first OFP hearing on December 23, 2025, grandmother submitted a
request for a subpoena duces tecum for the child’s records from the Jefferson Learning
Center. The district court denied the subpoena request on January 2, 2026, because the
subpoena form grandmother filled out was for a juvenile-delinquency case, rather than an
OFP proceeding. On January 7, 2026, grandmother submitted another subpoena request
for the child’s therapist at the Jefferson Learning Center to be called as a witness. The
record reflects that grandmother again used a subpoena form applicable to juvenile-
delinquency cases. There is no evidence in the record available to this court on appeal that
the district court ruled on grandmother’s second subpoena request, and the therapist did
not testify at the OFP hearings.
Grandmother’s claim that the district court’s subpoena rulings demonstrate bias is
unavailing. In the district court, grandmother did not challenge any aspect of the court’s
actions on the two subpoena requests. See Thiele, 425 N.W.2d at 582 (stating that an
appellate court will not consider matters not presented to and considered by the district
court). Further, grandmother cites no legal authority and offers no legal argument
explaining how the district court’s actions with respect to the subpoena requests show bias.
While “some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, this court has repeatedly
emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and
must comply with court rules.” Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 629 N.W.2d 115, 119 (Minn.
App. 2001). An assignment of error based on mere assertion, unsupported by argument or
authority, is forfeited and need not be considered unless prejudicial error is obvious on

6
mere inspection. Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 187 N.W.2d 133, 135
(Minn. 1971); see also State, Dep’t of Lab. & Indus. v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., 558
N.W.2d 480, 480 (Minn. 1997) (declining to address an inadequately briefed question).
Based on our careful review of the record, we conclude that grandmother’s argument that
the district court’s actions on her subpoena requests demonstrated bias is forfeited because
it is unsupported by legal authority and because prejudicial error is not obvious on
inspection. Wintz, 558 N.W.2d at 480; Schoepke, 187 N.W.2d at 135.
II. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying grandmother’s OFP
petition.

Grandmother argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying her OFP
petition. We review a district court’s decision to grant or deny an OFP for an abuse of
discretion. See Thompson v. Schrimsher, 906 N.W.2d 495, 500 (Minn. 2018). “A district
court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is
against logic and the facts in the record.” Id. (quotation omitted). We review the district
court’s factual findings for clear error. Gada v. Dedefo, 684 N.W.2d 512, 514 (Minn. App.
2004). In doing so, we view the record in the light most favorable to the district court’ s
findings, Pechovnik v. Pechovnik, 765 N.W.2d 94, 99 (Minn. App. 2009), and do not
reconcile conflicting evidence or weigh witness credibility, Aljubailah v. James, 903
N.W.2d 638, 643 (Minn. App. 2017).
A district court may issue an OFP to grant relief to a victim of domestic abuse.
Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 4 (2024). The term “domestic abuse” is defined by statute to
mean, in relevant part, “(1) physical harm, bodily injury, or assault; (2) the infliction of

7
fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, or assault”; or (3) various enumerated
crimes. Id., subd. 2(a) (2024). The petitioner bears the burden to prove by a preponderance
of the evidence that the named respondent “committed domestic abuse against the
petitioner or the person on whose behalf the petition is brought.” Schmidt ex rel. P.M.S. v.
Coons, 818 N.W.2d 523, 527 (Minn. 2012); see Oberg v. Bradley, 868 N.W.2d 62, 64
(Minn. App. 2015). The preponderance-of-the-evidence standard generally “requires that
to establish a fact, it must be more probable that the fact exists than that the contrary exists.”
Oberg, 868 N.W.2d at 65 (quotation omitted).
After hearing testimony from eight witnesses, including mother and grandmother,
and reviewing over 55 exhibits, the district court determined that grandmother’s
“suspicion[s] [of abuse] based solely on markings alone that hold alternative and
reasonable explanations” were insufficient to establish that mother had domestically
abused the child. While grandmother testified that the child’s injuries resulted from
mother’s abusive conduct, mother offered evidence to refute that allegation. By declining
to issue the OFP, the district court implicitly credited mother’s testimony over
grandmother’s testimony. Grandmother essentially asks us to reweigh the evidence that
was before the district court and make credibility determinations, something this court
cannot do. See Aljubailah, 903 N.W.2d at 643 (stating that, on appeal from a decision on
whether to grant an OFP, this court “will neither reconcile conflicting evidence nor decide
issues of witness credibility” (quotation omitted)). Because the evidence supports the
district court’s determination that grandmother failed to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that the child’s injuries resulted from domestic abuse and that mother was the

8
perpetrator of such abuse, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying grandmother’s
OFP petition. See Thompson, 906 N.W.2d at 500.
Affirmed.