Background
B.S. filed a petition for a domestic violence protection order (DVPO) against Carlos Lopez-Rangel, the father of her two minor children, alleging he had sexually assaulted her on July 9–10, 2025. At a hearing in August 2025, B.S. testified that Lopez-Rangel raped her twice, that a rape kit confirmed multiple vaginal injuries, and that photographs documented additional injuries. The parties’ three-year-old child had been asleep in a separate room during the incidents, while the one-year-old was asleep next to the bed where the second assault occurred. B.S. could not confirm whether either child was awake or heard anything.
Following the hearing, the Dunn County District Court entered a DVPO protecting B.S. and both minor children, with an expiration date listed as “unlimited.” The court expressly found on the record that domestic violence had been committed against B.S., but also acknowledged it had not heard evidence that violence was directed at the children, noting only that domestic violence in a home can involve “a very narrow border.” Lopez-Rangel timely appealed both the inclusion of the children as protected parties and the order’s unlimited duration.
The Court’s Holding
The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the DVPO as to B.S. but reversed the district court’s inclusion of the two minor children as protected parties. The court held that to extend DVPO coverage to children, the petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that actual or imminent domestic violence was committed against the children themselves. The record contained no such evidence — the district court itself found no violence was directed at the children, and unlike in prior cases, there was no showing that the children were traumatized or suffered any adverse effects from what occurred.
The court also reversed the unlimited duration of the DVPO and remanded for the district court to make adequate findings and impose a duration that is reasonable under the specific facts of the case. Citing its 2012 precedent in Rinas v. Engelhardt, the court reaffirmed that while a protection order may remain in effect indefinitely under the governing statute, the legislature intended its length to be calibrated to the circumstances. The district court’s oral remarks at the hearing were insufficient to provide a clear rationale for an unlimited term, constituting an abuse of discretion.
Key Takeaways
- A DVPO may be extended to cover minor children only upon proof by a preponderance of the evidence that domestic violence was actually or imminently directed at the children — general domestic violence in the household is not sufficient.
- The statutory presumption under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1)(j) — that any domestic violence negatively impacts children’s best interests — applies in parental rights and responsibilities proceedings, not in DVPO proceedings, and cannot substitute for direct proof of violence against the children.
- District courts must provide sufficiently specific findings to justify the duration of a DVPO; an “unlimited” term without a clear factual rationale constitutes an abuse of discretion requiring remand.
Why It Matters
This decision draws a meaningful line between two distinct legal frameworks: domestic violence protection order proceedings and parental rights determinations. Attorneys handling DVPOs must understand that the child-protective presumptions available in custody litigation do not carry over into protection order hearings — separate, direct evidence of harm or imminent harm to a child is required to bring that child within the order’s protection.
The ruling also serves as a practical reminder that trial courts must articulate a reasoned, fact-specific basis for any protection order’s duration, particularly when seeking to impose an indefinite term. Without such findings, the order is vulnerable on appeal regardless of the severity of the underlying conduct.