Appeals court hears challenge to restraining-order extensions and evidence exclusions in family dispute
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Appellant argued two restraining-order extensions were unsupported and that the trial court relied on a course-of-control statute before it took effect; the panel explored mootness after later stipulations and whether excluded police testimony and limited hearing time prejudiced the father.
The consolidated appeal in JN v. KB asked the panel to review two district-court extensions of a civil restraining order and whether the trial judge relied on factors or evidence that were not proper at the time.
Appellant counsel Jeffrey Pickering said the July 1 and September 4, 2024 orders were erroneous because the trial court considered “course of control” material that had not taken effect until September 18, 2024 and permitted an expert to testify about that concept; he also argued the district judge excluded potentially exculpatory police testimony and curtailed the father's ability to present evidence, leaving collateral employment consequences on the appellant’s record.
The panel pressed whether portions of the orders had been vacated by subsequent probate-court stipulations (which the parties later filed) and whether that resolution rendered the appeal moot except for collateral-consequence claims. Justices also asked whether the appellant properly proffered what the excluded detective would have said.
Appellee counsel Jennifer Lamanna said judges at both hearings independently found sufficient evidence of reasonable fear; she added the parties later stipulated in September 2025 to vacate certain child-related provisions but that collateral consequences to the father remained potentially reviewable.
The court took the matter under advisement after extended questioning about admissibility, credibility findings by district judges, and the proper standard for reviewing 209A extensions.