Diedra T. v. Justina R., 313 Neb. 417

Background

Diedra (petitioner) and Justina were formerly sexually involved; Diedra ended contact and alleged Justina became obsessive and threatening.
On March 30, 2022, Diedra filed for a domestic abuse protection order; the court entered an ex parte harassment protection order the same day covering Diedra and her two minor children.
Diedra alleged Justina sent numerous texts/calls (from various numbers to evade blocking), threatened to reveal Diedra’s sexual relationship to her employer, and threatened suicide if the relationship ended; Justina allegedly refused to leave Diedra’s home on March 29 until police intervened.
At the May 5, 2022 show-cause hearing the court considered both continuation of the ex parte harassment order and whether a domestic abuse order was appropriate; Diedra asked the court to treat the petition as a domestic abuse request but also to continue the harassment order.
The district court found sufficient evidence to continue the harassment protection order as to Diedra but insufficient evidence to grant a domestic abuse order; it continued the harassment order for 1 year and included the children.
On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed as modified: it upheld the harassment order as to Diedra but removed the children from its scope for lack of evidence.

Issues

Issue	Diedra's Argument	Justina's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supported continuing harassment order as to Diedra	Threats (to out her to employer, threaten suicide), repeated contacts, and police intervention show a knowing course of conduct that seriously threatens/intimidates	Volume of texts/calls alone is insufficient; no physical threats or harm to Diedra or children	Affirmed as to Diedra: objective reasonable-person standard met given threats to disclose and persistent contacts intended to evade blocking
Whether evidence supported continuing harassment order as to the children	Children are covered because petitioner reasonably feared for their safety as a result of threats to the parent	No specific acts or threats toward children; Justina had close relationship and denied harming them	Reversed as to children: record lacks specific evidence that a reasonable person would be seriously terrified, threatened, or intimidated on children’s behalf
Whether continuing harassment order after petitioner renewed request for domestic abuse order violated Justina's due process rights	No due process violation because respondent had notice and opportunity to be heard on harassment theory; domestic-abuse request was considered as an alternative	Yerania O. suggests courts may not sua sponte switch theories; Justina claims she lacked notice that harassment order remained possible after domestic-abuse theory was raised	Denied: court provided statutorily required notice, treated both theories simultaneously, and gave parties chance to present evidence, so no due process violation
Mootness if order expires before appellate decision	Public-interest exception and collateral consequences argue against mootness	Appeal not moot while order remains in effect	Court declined to address mootness because the order had not yet expired

Key Cases Cited

Garrison v. Otto, 311 Neb. 94 (2022) (protection order review is de novo but trial judge’s credibility findings can be given weight when evidence conflicts)
Hawkins v. Delgado, 308 Neb. 301 (2021) (show-cause hearing burden: petitioner must prove facts by preponderance; protection order analogous to injunction)
Maria A. on behalf of Leslie G. v. Oscar G., 301 Neb. 673 (2018) (petitioner’s burden at show cause and subsequent burden shift to respondent)
In re Interest of Jeffrey K., 273 Neb. 239 (2007) (harassment standard assessed objectively—what a reasonable person would experience)
Richards v. McClure, 290 Neb. 124 (2015) (statutory harassment language includes nonphysical threats and intimidation)
Robert M. on behalf of Bella O. v. Danielle O., 303 Neb. 268 (2019) (under domestic abuse act, third-party family members may be protected when target reasonably fears for their safety)
Yerania O. v. Juan P., 310 Neb. 749 (2022) (due process in protection hearings requires notice of the ultimate theory and a fair opportunity to address it)
R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) (First Amendment precedent on unprotected categories of speech referenced in discussion of threats)
U.S. v. Hobgood, 868 F.3d 744 (8th Cir. 2017) (statements threatening disclosure have been treated as extortionate/unprotected in related contexts)
Altafulla v. Ervin, 238 Cal. App. 4th 571 (2015) (use of true information to cause severe emotional distress can constitute abuse)