North Dakota Supreme Court hears appeal over disorderly conduct protection order

At an oral argument before the North Dakota Supreme Court in case No. 20250074, attorneys disputed whether a district court erred in issuing a disorderly conduct protection order that defense counsel said rested mainly on a single incident from February 2023 and generalized social‑media allegations.

The issue matters because, defense counsel told the justices, a two‑year protection order can substantially affect parenting time in an active custody dispute and should be based on current, specific threats rather than historical incidents.

Mister Hill, who identified himself as counsel for the appellant, told the court that most of the petitioner's allegations were unproven and that the district judge relied principally on photographs from February 2023. Hill argued the petitioner provided no text messages, no police or hospital records, and no contemporaneous evidence of present intent to harm, and he said the protection order was filed within “less than two weeks” after the custody complaint was commenced. Hill asked the court to reverse the order or limit its duration, saying historical incidents alone did not justify a full two‑year order.

The appellee, Miss Feynon, speaking on her own behalf, described repeated harassment she said continued after the relationship ended, and she told the court she feared for her safety and privacy. She said the parties share children and that she was not seeking to deny the father access to the children but wanted “my peace.” Miss Feynon also told the court that on at least one occasion the appellant had entered her home with a knife and that she had witnesses who were unavailable to testify at the hearing. She said, “Everything I said in those document, they were true. He was harassing me.”

A justice asked whether the timing of the protection petition — filed shortly after the custody complaint — could be read in more than one way, including that the petitioner may have feared the appellant would seek contact with the children. Counsel and the appellee traded views on whether the custody proceedings affected the propriety or duration of the protection order. The record, as discussed at argument, includes allegations of being followed in Jamestown in late 2024 and photographs from February 2023; Hill said those photographs were taken about a year and a half before the protection hearing.

Counsel for the appellant emphasized courts should require present evidence of a threat and questioned whether photographs alone are sufficient to support a restraining order. The appellee disputed that characterization and described a pattern of harassment, including the alleged break‑in with a weapon. Both sides pointed to the custody case as relevant context: Hill said the protection order was filed shortly after the custody complaint; Miss Feynon said she sought protection to preserve her safety while not blocking the father's access to the children.

The court took the case under advisement and did not announce a decision at the argument. The justices said they would issue a written opinion at a later date.