Albertson v. Albertson, 998 N.W.2d 811

Hattie Albertson filed for a disorderly conduct restraining order against Trenton Albertson in December 2022, seeking protection for herself and their minor child, C.W.A.
The district court initially granted a one-year disorderly conduct restraining order; this Court retained jurisdiction and remanded for additional factual findings.
On remand the court found Trenton made multiple threatening phone calls over two days (beginning about 3:00 a.m.), including threats to kill a friend of the child and threats implying violence toward C.W.A., and threats to "kick the door in."
The court heard recorded calls and testimony, found Trenton's voice angry and threatening, and credited Hattie’s testimony and a neighbor eyewitness that Trenton attempted to force entry by shaking the door handle and using his shoulder.
Hattie packed up the children and left the home out of fear; the court concluded the threats were not idle and that Trenton threatened violence against a non-family minor and his own child.
Trenton argued on appeal the order effectively modified the residential responsibility schedule without a best-interest hearing, but that issue was not raised below and therefore not preserved.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion in issuing a disorderly conduct restraining order	Hattie: facts (calls, recordings, witness, attempted entry) established reasonable grounds for disorderly conduct and justified the order	Trenton: the court’s findings were insufficient and the court abused its discretion	Held: No abuse of discretion; findings on remand were adequate and not clearly erroneous, so the order stands
Whether the restraining order improperly modified the residential responsibility schedule without a best-interest hearing	Hattie: (not contested below)	Trenton: the restraining order effectively modified custody/visitation without required § 14-09-06.2(1) best-interest analysis	Held: Issue not preserved for appeal because Trenton failed to raise it in district court; Court declines to address

Rekow v. Durheim, 980 N.W.2d 917 (2022 ND 177) (standards for issuing a disorderly conduct restraining order and abuse-of-discretion review)
Combs v. Lund, 858 N.W.2d 311 (2015 ND 10) (abuse-of-discretion framework and adequacy of findings)
Lehnerz v. Christopher, 975 N.W.2d 585 (2022 ND 122) (definition of reasonable grounds for restraining orders)
Gonzalez v. Witzke, 813 N.W.2d 592 (2012 ND 60) (reasonable grounds standard explained)
Jones v. Rath, 989 N.W.2d 92 (2023 ND 69) (court need not use magic words like "intent" if findings demonstrate intent to affect safety/security/privacy)
Schrodt v. Schrodt, 971 N.W.2d 861 (2022 ND 64) (issues not raised below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal)
Cody v. Cody, 921 N.W.2d 679 (2019 ND 14) (preservation rule and rationale)
Niska v. Falconer, 824 N.W.2d 778 (2012 ND 245) (what constitutes adequate findings for appellate review)
Ficklin v. Ficklin, 710 N.W.2d 387 (2006 ND 40) (clear-error standard for factual findings)