Cited by

6(a)(7) (2024); (“The Domestic Abuse Act provides that the granting of relief is within the district court’s discretion.”); (stating section 518B.01, subdivision 6(a) “specifically permits .

Relief under subdivision 6 “is within the district court’s discretion,” and district courts “should consider the uniqueness of the remedies available under the statute, as well as the potentially devastating consequences if such relief is not granted.”

– 20 (Minn. App. 1995) (reversing a mutual restraining order and observing that the district court should have been “very careful” to ensure that the petitioner, who was self- represented, had agreed to the order).

- 21 (Minn. App. 1995) (requiring written or oral findings for an order for protection); - 32 (Minn. App. 2000) (citing Mechtel in an HRO appeal); Minn. R. Civ.

Mechtel v. Mechtel , -20 (Minn. App. 1995).

The court cannot, “by judicial fiat, impose conditions on the parties to which they did not stipulate and thereby deprive the parties of their ‘day in court.’” n. 1 (Minn. App. 2000); -20 (Minn. App. 1995) (reversing mutual restraining order in an orde r-for-protection proceeding when the appellant-petitioner did not clearly agree to a restraining order agains t her, noting that, “[s]ince appellant was pro se, the district court should have been very careful to make sure that she was agreei

Minor Child v. Schrimsher , (citing the permissive definition of “may” and stating that “Under the [domestic abuse act], OFPs are never granted automatically”); see also Mechtel v. Mechtel , (“The Domestic Abuse Act provides that the granting of relief is within the district court’s discretion.”).

-19 (Minn. App. 1995) (concluding that court erred by requiring parties to participate in mediation after issuance of ex parte OFP).

6(a)(4); (stating that relief under the domestic abuse act is discretionary with district court).

-21 (Minn. App. 1995) (requiring written or oral findings for an order for protection); Minn. R. Civ.

(concluding that findings were insufficient when district court “made no written or oral findings, and filled in the 4 blank space for findings with a statement that it was not making a determination of guilt or any violation”).

(concluding that findings were insufficient when the district court “made no written or oral findings, and filled in the blank space for findings with a statement that it was not making a determination of guilt or any violation”); (

Therefore, the district court erred in requiring the parties to use ADR prior to bringing a future motion before the district court regarding decision-making responsibilities or parenting time.2 (holding that the district court improperly ordered appellant to participate in mediation with her abuser when she had an ex parte OFP against him).

(providing that when an OFP is issued after a hearing is held, the issuance of the ex parte OFP should be “treated as an implicit finding of probable cause of physical abuse,” if the record supports such findings and the specific findings made by the district court do not conflict with such

In so ruling, we are mindful of the directive that “judges considering actions brought under the [act] should consider the uniqueness of the remedies available under the statute, as well as the potentially devastating consequences if such relief is not granted.”

(citing Mechtel v. Mechtel (Minn.App.

*732 920 (Minn.App.1995) (noting that relief granted in domestic abuse proceeding was within trial court’s discretion).

(holding that issuance of a protective order or other probable cause of abuse precludes court ordered mediation).

in which this court held that unless the respondent in a domestic abuse action also requests a restraining order, it is error to issue a mutual restraining order.