Robert M. on behalf of Bella O. v. Danielle O., 303 Neb. 268

Background

Parents Robert M. and Danielle O. share a daughter, Bella (born 2007); Robert has primary residential responsibility and Danielle limited parenting time per prior North Dakota order.
On July 9, 2018 in Minnesota, Danielle returned to a duplex with Bella and, in Bella’s presence, physically attacked Danielle’s brother Neill and mother Nancy, damaged property (including kicking in a door), and was arrested for misdemeanor domestic assault.
Bella was present during the violence, told Robert she was scared, and reported Danielle had taken Bella’s phone and may have been under the influence.
Robert petitioned in Nebraska for an ex parte domestic abuse protection order on Bella’s behalf under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-924; the court issued the order and later held a show-cause hearing.
At the hearing Danielle introduced the police report, did not dispute its account, agreed she had not been abusive to Bella directly, and denied making threats or being under the influence.
The trial court found Danielle’s conduct constituted a “credible threat” that placed Bella in fear of bodily injury under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-903(1)(b) and affirmed the protection order; Danielle appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bella qualifies as a "victim" under § 42-903(1)(b) where Danielle’s violent acts were not directly aimed at Bella	Robert: Bella is a victim because the credible threat to others caused fear for Bella’s safety	Danielle: Her actions were not directed at Bella; Bella was not the target of any threat	Court: A target’s reasonable fear for family members brings those family members within § 42-903(1)(b); Bella may be a victim though not directly targeted
Whether Danielle’s nonverbal violent conduct can constitute a "credible threat" implied by a pattern of conduct	Robert: Physical attacks, property damage, and attempts to approach Bella communicated an implied threat	Danielle: No explicit threats; “pattern” requires multiple incidents—this was a single incident and not aimed at Bella	Court: Conduct that communicates an intention to inflict harm can be an implied threat; the sequence of violent acts and property damage at the duplex constituted a pattern of conduct
Whether Neill and Nancy reasonably feared for Bella’s safety (necessary to make Bella a victim)	Robert: Circumstantial evidence (locking doors, directing Bella away, Bella’s fear) shows they reasonably feared for Bella	Danielle: No direct testimony from Neill or Nancy at hearing; actions weren’t directed at Bella	Court: Circumstantial evidence makes it more likely than not Neill and Nancy reasonably feared for Bella’s safety; that supports a finding of abuse by preponderance
Whether the trial court erred in affirming the protection order	Robert: Protection order proper under the Act given credible threat and family-membership	Danielle: Trial court erred; statutory elements unmet	Court: Affirmed — trial court did not err though appellate reasoning differs slightly

Key Cases Cited

Maria A. on behalf of Leslie G. v. Oscar G., 301 Neb. 673 (domestic abuse protection order appeal; burden and de novo review guidance)
Linda N. on behalf of Rebecca N. v. William N., 289 Neb. 607 (interpretation of domestic abuse protection order statutes)
State ex rel. Peterson v. Creative Comm. Promotions, 302 Neb. 606 (statutory interpretation—plain and ordinary meaning rule)
Knopik v. Hahn, 25 Neb. App. 157 (Court of Appeals decision on harassment/protection orders; distinguished)
Zimmerer v. Prudential Ins. Co., 150 Neb. 351 (definition/scope of family or household membership)