Richards v. McClure, 858 N.W.2d 841

Background

Parent Alison Richards filed an ex parte harassment protection order (HPO) petition on behalf of her 17-year-old daughter Makayla against Makayla’s boyfriend, Dustin McClure; the court entered an ex parte HPO and scheduled a show-cause hearing after McClure requested one.
Richards attached cell‑phone records and screenshots of texts to the petition but did not bring copies to the hearing; the court conditionally received those attachments as Exhibit 1 and instructed Richards to submit copies for the record afterward (copies were not made part of the bill of exceptions).
At the hearing neither Richards nor Makayla testified under oath; McClure testified and called a witness (his grandmother) who testified Makayla did not want the order and was a willing participant in the communications.
Richards offered an undated anonymous letter about the relationship as Exhibit 6; the court admitted it over McClure’s objections (authentication, foundation, hearsay, relevance).
The district court found McClure’s conduct "seriously threatening," cited the parents’ concerns and facts about the relationship (age difference, sexual nature, alleged encouragement of marijuana), and extended the HPO for one year.
On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed de novo, concluded Exhibits 1 and 6 were improperly admitted (Exhibit 1 not in the bill of exceptions; Exhibit 6 not authenticated), found insufficient admissible evidence to support the HPO, and reversed and remanded with directions to vacate the order.

Issues

Issue	Richards' Argument	McClure's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Exhibit 1 (cell‑phone records & screenshots)	Richards relied on the attachments to the petition and the court’s conditional receipt of them	Exhibit 1 was never properly offered at the hearing nor made part of the bill of exceptions; lacks proper foundation	Exhibit 1 unavailable on appeal; not part of bill of exceptions and thus not properly considered
Admissibility of Exhibit 6 (anonymous undated letter)	Richards offered it to show she received information that prompted the petition	Lacked authentication, foundation, and was hearsay and irrelevant	Exhibit 6 not properly authenticated; admission was error
Sufficiency of evidence to issue HPO under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28‑311.09	Parent’s testimony and attachments demonstrated harassing course of conduct; parent may act in child’s best interest	Insufficient admissible evidence that a reasonable victim would be seriously terrified, threatened, or intimidated	On de novo review, evidence properly before the court was insufficient to support the HPO; reversed and vacated
Whether a parent may obtain HPO over child’s objection	Richards argued a parent may act in the child’s best interests to seek protection	McClure argued the statute requires assessment of victim’s (child’s) experience; the child did not testify and was a willing participant	Court below relied on parental concern but appellate decision rests on evidentiary insufficiency; issue decided by vacating order for lack of admissible evidence

Key Cases Cited

Mahmood v. Mahmud, 279 Neb. 390 (2010) (testimony must be under oath and documents admitted to be considered at show‑cause hearings)
Glantz v. Daniel, 21 Neb. App. 89 (2013) (objective standard: whether a reasonable victim would be seriously terrified, threatened, or intimidated)
In re Interest of Jeffrey K., 273 Neb. 239 (2007) (stalking/harassment statutes are given objective construction)
Bedore v. Ranch Oil Co., 282 Neb. 553 (2011) (a bill of exceptions is the sole vehicle for bringing evidence to an appellate court)
Hike v. State, 288 Neb. 60 (2014) (admissibility governed by Nebraska Evidence Rules; judicial discretion only where rules allow)
State v. Timmerman, 240 Neb. 74 (1991) (letters may be authenticated by witness testimony establishing personal knowledge)