Rath v. Rath, 877 N.W.2d 298

Kayla Rath petitioned for a disorderly conduct restraining order against Mark Rath alleging repeated calls, foul language, attempts to obtain her phone records, and reports to authorities regarding benefits.
At the hearing Kayla, under oath and represented, affirmed the petition’s allegations but offered no further testimony; Mark, self-represented, sought to call and cross-examine her.
The district court refused Mark’s direct cross-examination of Kayla, instead requiring him to propose questions for the judge to ask; the court found none appropriate and asked no questions.
The court found Mark’s conduct constituted disorderly conduct and issued a restraining order through April 30, 2017.
Mark appealed, arguing denial of a full hearing/due process (no direct cross-examination) and that some conduct was constitutionally protected speech which the court failed to address.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court violated due process by denying direct cross‑examination	Kayla argued procedure was necessary for safety, to minimize conflict, and keep the hearing focused	Mark argued he was entitled to direct cross‑examination as part of a full hearing and due process	Reversed: court abused discretion by denying direct cross‑examination without specific on‑record findings justifying the deviation; remand for new hearing or detailed findings if judge again restricts cross‑examination
Whether the court erred by not resolving defendant’s constitutional protection claim	Kayla did not contest that the court must decide valid constitutional claims	Mark argued his language/calls were constitutionally protected (parenting speech/fighting words not met) and court must rule as matter of law	Remanded: court must address and decide Mark’s constitutional claims; if found protected, those acts cannot constitute disorderly conduct

Skadberg v. Skadberg, 2002 ND 97, 644 N.W.2d 873 (summary hearing purpose to quickly address volatile situations)
Gullickson v. Kline, 2004 ND 76, 678 N.W.2d 138 (full hearing requires live testimony, credibility assessment, and resolution of constitutional claims)
Wetzel v. Schlenvogt, 2005 ND 190, 705 N.W.2d 836 (petitioners generally must prove by testimony with opportunity for cross‑examination)
Cusey v. Nagel, 2005 ND 84, 695 N.W.2d 697 (accepting affidavits and allowing cross‑examination can constitute a full hearing when no objection to form)
Svedberg v. Stamness, 525 N.W.2d 678 (N.D. 1994) (definition of "reasonable grounds" standard)
Holbach v. Dixon, 2007 ND 60, 730 N.W.2d 613 (due process required throughout restraining order proceedings)
Hutchinson v. Boyle, 2008 ND 150, 753 N.W.2d 881 (failure to address constitutional claims generally reversible unless uncontested facts alone would support order)
State v. Aguero, 2010 ND 210, 791 N.W.2d 1 (due process requires on‑record explanation when deviating from standard courtroom procedures)