Darcie Gilliard and on behalf of minor children v. Jacob Alton Leatherman, A16-132

Darcie Gilliard (petitioner) moved from Washington to Minnesota with her two minor children in July 2015; Jacob Leatherman is father of younger child I.M.L.; Sherrie Mackay is I.M.L.’s paternal grandmother.
Gilliard, the custodial parent of I.M.L., filed two Minnesota harassment restraining order (HRO) petitions in July 2015: one against Leatherman and one against Mackay, each on behalf of herself and the children.
Allegations included repeated threats (including threats to shoot/kill, threats to take the child), refusal to return property/child, posting false accusations on Facebook, and contacting CPS with unfounded reports.
At an October 2015 evidentiary hearing, Gilliard testified to numerous threats and incidents; Leatherman and Mackay denied the allegations and moved to dismiss as to I.M.L. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA.
The district court denied the jurisdictional challenge, found reasonable grounds to believe harassment occurred as to Gilliard and the children, and issued HROs prohibiting contact and imposing distance restrictions; Leatherman could later apply for contact with I.M.L. after completing domestic-violence assessment/programming.
On appeal, the court reviewed (1) whether the UCCJEA precluded Minnesota jurisdiction over the child-related aspects of the HROs, and (2) whether evidence supported issuance of the HROs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Minnesota lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA to issue HROs on behalf of I.M.L.	Gilliard argued Minnesota could grant HROs because no Washington court had an existing custody order awarding Leatherman or Mackay custody or parenting time when HROs were sought.	Leatherman and Mackay argued Washington was I.M.L.’s home state, had made an initial custody determination, and the UCCJEA therefore barred Minnesota from issuing orders affecting custody/visitation.	Court held UCCJEA did not apply because the record contained no Washington custody determination granting custody or parenting time to appellants; Minnesota could issue HROs.
Whether evidence was sufficient to support HROs for petitioner and children (single assault vs repeated harassment)	Gilliard relied on testimony of repeated threats, false accusations, refusal to return child/property, and conduct that would reasonably affect safety/security/privacy.	Appellants argued no physical assault or bodily harm evidence, threats were insufficient, Facebook/posts and CPS contacts were reasonable, and lack of documentary proof (texts) undermined claims.	Court held evidence was sufficient: verbal threats, false accusations, and related conduct satisfied repeated intrusive-act prong and objective-reasonableness standard; single-incident assault prong not met but repeated-harassment prong was.

Schroeder v. Schroeder, 658 N.W.2d 909 (Minn. App. 2003) (subject-matter jurisdiction under UCCJEA is a legal question reviewed de novo)
Peterson v. Johnson, 755 N.W.2d 758 (Minn. App. 2008) (standard of review for HRO issuance and requirements for proving harassment)
Kush v. Mathison, 683 N.W.2d 841 (Minn. App. 2004) (appellate review of district court findings and deference to credibility)
Dunham v. Roer, 708 N.W.2d 552 (Minn. App. 2006) (two-prong test for HRO: objective unreasonableness and objectively reasonable belief of substantial adverse effect)