In a recent blog article, we reviewed North Dakota Supreme Court case law for examples of what particular kinds of behavior is sufficient or insufficient to show “disorderly conduct” for purposes of obtaining a disorderly conduct restraining order (“DCRO”). Remember, “disorderly conduct” means “intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or gestures that are intended to adversely affect the safety, security, or privacy of another person.” Review this other past article for some common misunderstandings about the term.

Here are 10 more examples to help us understand the type of behavior which can support a DCRO.

1. Hanisch v. Kroshus, 2013 ND 37, 827 N.W.2d 528. Sending text messages to a former significant other of a harassing nature, including pictures of the recipient’s genitals, when the pictures were taken without her consent, and threatening to put the pictures on the internet, along with calling the person derogatory names, and continuing to send the messages after the recipient asked him to stop, is sufficient for the issuance of a DCRO.

2. Mitzel v. Larson, 2017 ND 48, 890 N.W.2d 817. Sending text messages to a former significant other claiming the recipient had ruined the sender’s life, calling the recipient derogatory names, and continuing to text when the recipient asked the sender to stop (although the recipient continued to engage in text conversations as well), is not sufficient for a DCRO when the testimony didn’t show how the messages affected the recipient’s safety, security, or privacy.

3. J.B. v. R.B., 2018 ND 83, 908 N.W.2d 687. Threatening, in the presence of another person, to commit suicide if the other person didn’t do what the person requested, does not establish grounds for a DCRO.

4. Tibor v. Lund, 1999 ND 176, 599 N.W.2d 301. An ex-stepmother visiting the two children after being told by the mother not to do so, with one of the visits happening at daycare, and both visits were with the consent of the father, does not establish grounds for a DCRO.

5. Sollin v. Klein, 2021 ND 75, 958 N.W.2d 144. Attacking someone with a cattle dehorning pipe, resulting in physical injury and damage to the person’s phone, is sufficient to obtain a DCRO.

6. Lehnerz v. Christopher, 2022 ND 122, 975 N.W.2d 585. A person confronted the other and blocked her entrance to daycare, then yelled at her about her fiance, and on another occasion, parked near the daycare and took photos or videos of the other person when the other person was dropping the children off. The person also sat next to the other person at three sporting events, making nasty comments and taking photos and videos of her and her daughter. Finally, the person showed up at daycare numerous times when it was not her parenting time, and continued these behaviors after being asked to stop. This was sufficient for the issuance of a DCRO.

7. Hoggarth v. Kropp, 2010 ND 197, 790 N.W.2d 22. After a heated telephone conversation, a person confronted another in a menacing and threatening manner outside the other’s workplace. The person screamed vulgarities and parked behind the other so she could not leave the parking lot. Then, the person sent a number of emails to the family email account of the other person, including pictures of the sender with the recipient’s spouse, with whom the sender had an affair, in effect publishing the affair to the entire family including the other person’s children. This was sufficient for the issuance of a DCRO.

8. Svedberg v. Stamness, 525 N.W.2d 678. Conduct was sufficient for the issuance of a DCRO when a middle-school child threatened the life of another, saying “You had better watch it Dumbo or I will kill you,” and continually taunted and insulted the other child.

9. Rebel v. Rebel, 2013 ND 164, 837 N.W.2d 351. A person used vulgar and abusive language toward another person on multiple occasions, including yelling profanities, and then confronted the other with an alleged DNA test purporting to show he was not the father of his two children. Further, the person tried to entice the other to get out of her car, suggesting the person would inflict violence on her and trying to incite a fight. This was sufficient for a DCRO.

10. Wishnatsky v. Huey, 1997 ND 35, 560 N.W.2d 878. A person closing a door on another in an office, pushing the other out into the hall, and then storming away, as well as lecturing a third person in the presence of the other on a separate occasion, including shaking a finger at the third person and telling him, “I will not be trifled with,” was not sufficient for a DCRO.

Conclusion

If you have questions regarding this topic, then seek the advice of a family law attorney. Contact the SW&L family law team at 701-297-2890 or email us at: info@swlattorneys.com.

The information contained in this article and on this website is for informational purposes only. Do not rely on information on this website as legal advice. Please refer to the full disclaimer here.