## Facts

- Barbara Baker sought an order for protection (OFP) against her estranged husband, James Baker, under Minnesota’s Domestic Abuse Act.
- The parties married in 1991; their only child was born in May 1991.
- During summer 1991, conflict escalated, including an incident where James threatened to kill Barbara and struck her while she held the child.
- On August 30, 1991, Barbara left the marital home with the child; later that day James followed her to her aunt’s home, forced entry, and kicked and pushed Barbara.
- The district court issued an ex parte temporary OFP excluding James from the residence, restraining harassment, and granting Barbara temporary custody with visitation.
- After notice and a full hearing, the district court found each party entitled to an OFP; custody remained with Barbara and James received extensive unsupervised visitation.
- The court of appeals reversed the ex parte OFP and remanded the temporary custody determination for particularized best-interests findings.
- During litigation the parties divorced; James argued the appeal was moot.

## Issues

1. Whether Domestic Abuse Act OFP procedures comply with Minn. R. Civ. P. 65.01, applicable practice rules, and constitutional due process.
2. Whether temporary custody in an ex parte OFP must include the dissolution-statute finding of “immediate danger of physical harm.”
3. Whether temporary custody decisions under the Domestic Abuse Act require particularized statutory best-interests findings.

## Decision

- The appeal was not moot because the issues were capable of repetition yet evading review in short-term OFP proceedings.
- The Domestic Abuse Act’s procedures for ex parte relief followed by prompt notice and a full hearing comply with Rule 65.01, relevant practice rules, and due process.
- Temporary custody provisions in an ex parte OFP may be based on the Domestic Abuse Act’s standards alone and need not include an “immediate danger of physical harm” finding from the dissolution temporary-relief statute.
- Particularized statutory best-interests findings are not required for temporary custody determinations made under the Domestic Abuse Act.
- The supreme court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the district court’s order.

## Legal Principles

- The Domestic Abuse Act provides a constitutionally sufficient process for ex parte protection orders when based on sworn allegations, judicial review, and a prompt post-deprivation hearing.
- Temporary custody ordered within an ex parte OFP is governed by the Domestic Abuse Act and does not incorporate additional custody prerequisites from dissolution temporary-relief statutes absent legislative direction.
- Detailed best-interests findings required for permanent custody determinations are not mandatory for temporary custody measures issued as part of Domestic Abuse Act protection orders.

## Conclusion

The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the Domestic Abuse Act is a self-contained framework authorizing ex parte protection orders, including temporary custody, under its own standards without importing dissolution “immediate danger” requirements or demanding detailed best-interests findings for temporary custody.


Baker v. Baker, 494 N.W.2d 282 (Minn. 1992)