Cited by

303.04(a); (stating that rule 303.04 “provide[s] a framework to guide” district courts).

d 282, 290 (Minn. 1992) (concluding that district courts, when deciding upon custody for children as part of issuing an OFP, need not make particularized findings regarding a child’s best-interests under separate state statute).

Indeed, “[c]ompliance with the [statutory] requirements for particularized ‘best interests’ findings is not required when making temporary custody determinations under the Domestic Abuse Act.” 4 -83 (Minn. 1992) ; see Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd.

“It is a substantive statute which is complete in itself, carefully drafted to provide limited types of relief to persons at risk of further abuse by other ‘family or household 6 members,’ whether married or not.” 2 “Nothing within the plain wording of the statute suggests that reference to any other statute is necessary.” Id.

Because the Minnesota Supreme Court has distinguished Chapter 518B from Chapter 518, –86 (Minn. 1992), Dornquast presents a significant issue of statutory interpretation without providing any analysis of the statutory language at issue.

(noting that the Domestic Abuse Act “may be thought of as a ‘band -aid,’ designed to curtail the harm one household member may be doing to the other in the short term”).

“The requirements of due process are flexible and call for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.” Baker v. Baker

(“[ The Domestic Abuse Act] requires a demonstration of physical harm, or fear, or sexual misconduct .

Safety, -17 (Minn.2007) (holding that the “state has a compelling interest” in protecting “the citizens of Minnesota” from individuals who “pose a severe threat to the[ir] health and safety” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); (observing that the State has a “strong interest in preventing violence in a domestic setting”).

Our court has already indicated in broad terms that the Act was designed to protect victims — “[It] was enacted in 1979 as one way to protect victims of domestic as *527 sault.” (noting that the Act was “designed to curtail the harm one household member may be doing to the other”); 213 (Minn.2001) (explaining the purpose of the Act is “to provide speedy, effective relief to victims of domestic abuse” and that the Act “pr

Governmental Interest The Minnesota Supreme Court has declared that the state has a “strong interest in preventing violence in a domestic setting.”

(stating that the “main factors to consider are: (1) the private interests to be affected by the official action; (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation of these interests and the probable value of additional safeguards; and (3) the government interests involved”).

Section 518B.01 “neither establishes nor terminates a legal relationship.” superseded by statute as stated in Burkstrand, d at 212.

Relying on the Minnesota Supreme Court’s -88 (Minn.1992), Gada argues that best-interests findings were not required.

-281 (Minn.App.1999) (declining to add civil notice procedures to those already provided in the Domestic Abuse Act); (“The requirements of due process are flexible and call for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.”).

See, (explaining that, if notice were required for ex parte restraining order under Domestic Abuse Act, the order would not provide the immediate remedy that the act contemplates).

This court, however, has addressed issues involving ex parte orders since those issues are "capable of repetition yet evading review.” rev'd on other grounds

893, 905 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) (termination of disability benefits); (ex parte temporary custody order).