Sandra Brandt appeals from an order allowing her former husband supervised visitation with their minor child. Contending her fоrmer husband sexually abused their child, Brandt sought a protection order. The trial court found that the evidencе did not establish abuse by the former husband. We affirm.
*265 I
Sandra and Dennis Brandt were married July 30, 1983, and had one child during the marriagе. The couple separated in May 1990, when the child was less than one year old. The divorce decree, entered July 1992, granted Sandra custody of their child with Dennis to receive supervised visitation.
On December 2, 1992, Sandra filed an application for a protection order under N.D.C.C. ch. 14-07.1. She alleged Dennis had sexually abused their child. A hearing on the order was continued several times to allow for psychological examination of the parties and appointment of a guardian ad litem for the child. The alleged sexual abuse was also investigated by social services and the state’s attorney. Probable cause was nevеr established and criminal charges were not filed against Dennis.
Sandra Hewitt, Ph.D., Sandra’s expert, interviewed the сhild and concluded Dennis had sexually abused him, but said her findings needed to be replicated by another profеssional. Myron Veenstra, Ph.D., court-appointed expert, also interviewed the child, but was unable to verify abuse occurred or the identity of a possible abuser. The guardian ad litem concluded the evidence against Dennis was not compelling and supervised visitation should continue. The other experts involved in the сase did not obtain any substantive statements of abuse or whether Dennis was an abuser. Dennis passed a polygraph test in which he denied any sexual abuse of the child.
The trial court reviewed the experts’ conсlusions and denied Sandra’s application for the protection order. Dennis was to continue supervised visitation. The trial court concluded joint and individual counseling of the parties, to resolve their past differences, should be instituted.
The trial court had jurisdiction under Art. VI, § 8, N.D. Const., N.D.C.C. §§ 27-05-06(2) and 14-07.1-02. This Court has jurisdiction under Art. VI, § 6, N.D. Const., and N.D.C.C. § 28-27-02(3). The appеal is timely under Rule 4(a), N.D.RApp.P.
II
Sandra sought protection under N.D.C.C. § 14-07.1-02, the domestic violence protectiоn statute. The statute has been liberally construed to protect victims other than adults. Abuse of the comрlaining adult is only one of the abusive situations protected by the statute.
Lucke v. Lucke,
A trial court’s determination of abuse under N.D.C.C. § 14-07.1-02 is a finding of fact.
Steckler v. Steckler,
A protection order is a civil action primarily for injunctive relief. Sandra, аs the party requesting the order, has the burden of proving abuse by a preponderance of the evidеnce. Steckler at 80. She argues the trial court applied an incorrect burden of proof to distinguish testimony her expert, Hewitt, made identifying Dennis as a sexual abuser. Sandra notes the trial court’s memorandum decision held:
“Significantly, Dr. Hewitt indicated that: ‘In оrder to document abuse, James will. need to repeat his information to another qualified interviewer. ’ No other qualified interviewer has confirmed the information given by [the child] to Dr. Hewitt. Even the information given by [the child] tо Dr. Hewitt did not specifically identify any details of sexual abuse.” (Emphasis in original.)
Sandra argues this statement was mаde in preparation for criminal prosecution. She claims confirmation of the child’s allegatiоns is not necessary in this civil action. Sandra
*266
is correct that a lesser burden of proof, a prepоnderance of the evidence, is all that is necessary to prove abuse under N.D.C.C. § 14-07.1-02. Sandra incorreсtly argues the trial court used Hewitt’s statement as a threshold to meet the burden of proof. The quotation mеrely indicated the weight the trial court placed on the expert testimony of Hewitt. A trial court cannоt arbitrarily disregard expert testimony.
Johnson v. Johnson,
The trial court applied the correct burden of proоf. In its decision, the trial court stated:
“The burden of proof is on the Applicant to show sexual abuse by a preponderance of the evidence. Although there is probative evidence on both sides of the issue, the Court finds that the evidence is in equipoise or even favoring a determination of no sexual abuse committed by the Respondent.”
After assigning weight to each opinion and weighing all the evidence, the trial сourt concluded the preponderance of the evidence did not establish that Dennis sexually abused the child. The trial court’s findings of fact are not clearly erroneous.
Ill
The order of the trial court is affirmed.