Bjergum v. Bjergum
Summary
Addressed the standard for granting orders for protection under the Minnesota Domestic Abuse Act, holding that a petitioner must show a present threat of harm, not merely historical incidents of abuse.
Why This Case Matters
An Order for Protection (OFP) is one of the most important legal tools available to victims of domestic abuse in Minnesota. Bjergum v. Bjergum addressed a fundamental question about when an OFP is appropriate: must the petitioner show a present threat of harm, or is evidence of past abuse enough? The Court of Appeals held that the Domestic Abuse Act requires a showing of present harm or a present intention to inflict harm. Evidence of abuse that happened years ago, standing alone, does not justify an OFP. This case helps define the boundary between protection orders based on genuine current danger and those based on historical grievances.
The Facts
A petitioner sought an Order for Protection under the Minnesota Domestic Abuse Act (Minn. Stat. section 518B.01) against a family or household member. The petitioner presented evidence of abuse, but the incidents had occurred in the past. The respondent argued that the petitioner had not demonstrated a current threat of harm. The district court issued the OFP, and the respondent appealed. The Court of Appeals was asked to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to support the order.
What the Court Decided
The Court of Appeals held that the definition of “domestic abuse” under the Domestic Abuse Act requires a showing of present harm or a present intention to inflict harm. Evidence of abuse that occurred years earlier does not, by itself, justify the issuance of an Order for Protection. The petitioner must demonstrate a current threat – not merely historical incidents. The court reasoned that OFPs are designed to protect people from ongoing or imminent danger, not to serve as a retrospective remedy for past conduct that is no longer threatening.
What This Means for You
- OFPs require a current threat: To obtain an Order for Protection, you must show that you are in present danger or that the other party has a present intention to cause harm. Past abuse can be relevant context, but standing alone it may not be enough.
- Recent and ongoing conduct strengthens your petition: Evidence of recent threats, physical harm, stalking, or intimidation is the strongest basis for an OFP. A pattern of escalating behavior is particularly compelling.
- You can still seek protection for serious situations: If you are experiencing domestic abuse – physical harm, threats of harm, or conduct that makes you fear for your safety – you should seek an OFP promptly. Minnesota law allows for emergency (ex parte) orders that can be granted the same day you file, with a full hearing scheduled within 14 days.