Hanisch v. Kroshus, 2013 ND 37

Hanisch and Kroshus dated but were never married; they share a 16-month-old child at the hearing.
They unsuccessfully attempted reconciliation in February 2012.
On March 21, 2012, Hanisch petitioned for a disorderly conduct restraining order after harassing texts and sexually explicit pictures, with threats to post online.
A temporary order was granted and a full hearing was set for March 28, 2012.
Hanisch testified Kroshus sent sexually explicit and harassing texts beginning March 18, 2012, including about 12 messages in a short time frame.
Some pictures were claimed to be nonconsensual; Kroshus admitted sending the messages and derogatory language, citing relationship context and alcohol.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion in granting the order	Hanisch argues sufficient evidence shows disorderly conduct.	Kroshus contends conduct was part of dating, not disorderly.	No abuse; order affirmed.
Whether there were reasonable grounds to believe disorderly conduct occurred	Hanisch presents series of harassing, explicit texts intended to invade privacy.	Kroshus claims short, consensual interactions; delays due to reception.	Reasonable grounds found; disorderly conduct proved.
Whether the two-year restraining order was properly tailored in time and distance	Hanisch needs ongoing protection given repeated offenses.	Kroshus argues broader restrictions are overbroad.	Order narrowly tailored with 50-foot/property boundaries; custody orders unaffected.

Gonzalez v. Witzke, 813 N.W.2d 592 (2012 ND 60) (requires proof by full hearing with cross-examination)
Cusey v. Nagel, 695 N.W.2d 697 (2005 ND 84) (unwanted acts must be proven to affect safety, security, or privacy)
Wetzel v. Schlenvogt, 705 N.W.2d 836 (2005 ND 190) (reasonable grounds may suffice; pattern not required)
Hoggarth v. Kropp, 790 N.W.2d 22 (2010 ND 197) (review of restraining orders for narrow tailoring)