This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
                        Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

                               STATE OF MINNESOTA
                               IN COURT OF APPEALS
                                     A23-1494

                                  Jamie Alysha Messerli,
                                       Respondent,

                                             vs.

                                 Jonathan Warren Castillo,
                                        Appellant.

                                    Filed June 3, 2024
                                         Affirmed
                                      Frisch, Judge


                              Hennepin County District Court
                                File No. 27-CV-23-10775

Jason C. Brown, Barna, Guzy & Steffen, Ltd., Coon Rapids, Minnesota (for respondent)

Jacob T. Erickson, Smith, Paulson, O’Donnell & Erickson, PLC, Monticello, Minnesota
(for appellant)

       Considered and decided by Bratvold, Presiding Judge; Segal, Chief Judge; and

Frisch, Judge.

                           NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION

FRISCH, Judge

       Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion in granting respondent’s

petition for a harassment restraining order (HRO), maintaining that the record does not

support a determination of harassment. Because the district court’s order is supported by

the record, we affirm.
                                           FACTS

       On April 3, 2023, respondent-mother Jamie Alysha Messerli petitioned the Carver

County District Court for an HRO against appellant-father Jonathan Warren Castillo on

behalf of herself and the parties’ two daughters. Messerli alleged that, about once a week

since the beginning of January 2023, Castillo would come to the children’s school when

she was there to pick up the children after school and would, among other things, follow

her into the school, berate her in front of parents and school staff, and record her without

her permission. The Carver County District Court granted Messerli a temporary ex parte

HRO, and Castillo timely requested a hearing. The case was then transferred to Hennepin

County District Court to be heard by the same referee presiding over the parties’ ongoing

custody dispute.

       At the hearing, Messerli testified that in January 2022, following a custody trial, the

family court granted her sole physical and sole legal custody of the parties’ children. The

order also granted Castillo parenting time, including picking up the children on Tuesdays

at the school. But in September 2022, Messerli notified Castillo that she had made the

unilateral decision to stop his parenting time. Castillo sent a message to Messerli telling

her that she was committing a felony by withholding the children in violation of the custody

order, and he regularly called the police to notify them that Messerli was withholding the

children. But Castillo did not attempt to exercise his parenting time between September

2022 and January 2023.

       In January 2023, Castillo began appearing at the children’s school every Tuesday

after school. During his first appearance at the school, Castillo sat inside his car outside of


                                              2
the school, but when Messerli entered the school to pick up the children, Castillo followed

her inside. The school principal then assisted Messerli in getting the children into her car

so they could leave. Castillo continued this behavior every Tuesday for the next few

months, following Messerli into the school during pickup, filming her taking the children,

and following them to Messerli’s car. In each instance, a school representative was present

to mediate and ensure safety. Over time, Castillo’s behavior escalated. Castillo would not

speak directly to Messerli and would instead tell the staff that Messerli was “abusive,” and

“a terrible mother,” and he would tell other parents that Messerli was a “kidnapper.”

       In response to this behavior, Messerli and school staff developed a safety plan that

included Messerli picking up the children before their normal scheduled pickup time and

from a different location at the school to attempt to prevent any interaction with Castillo.

But Castillo circumvented this safety plan by changing his own arrival time and location

so that he could continue to encounter Messerli and the children at the school.

       Castillo further escalated his conduct by following Messerli to her car, pressing his

phone against Messerli’s car window to film her, and mocking her. On at least one

occasion, Castillo clapped his hands while following Messerli, simultaneously saying,

“great parenting, great parenting.” On another occasion, Castillo followed Messerli to her

car, screamed at Messerli that she was a “deadbeat mom” and was “abusing the kids,” and

threatened to call the police. Another parent intervened to enable Messerli to get in the car

and leave. Messerli testified that as a result of Castillo’s actions, she had lost weight and

sleep from the fear she felt for herself and her children.




                                              3
       Castillo also testified at the hearing. He stated that although he exercised his

parenting time prior to the end of September or beginning of October 2022, he did not visit

with the children thereafter. Castillo testified that, after he stopped exercising parenting

time, he still went to the children’s school Tuesdays during his court-ordered pickup time.

Castillo admitted to approaching Messerli’s car at the school, but he denied following or

yelling at Messerli. Castillo admitted to calling Messerli an abusive parent in front of the

children and a kidnapper in front of other parents at the school. Castillo acknowledged to

the referee that his decision to accuse Messerli of crimes in front of the children and people

at the school was not a “child-focused decision.”

       The referee credited Messerli’s testimony and discredited Castillo’s testimony,

specifically finding that Castillo did not appear at the children’s school to exercise

parenting time but instead appeared at the school to harass and embarrass Messerli. The

referee specifically noted that a recording of one of the encounters at the school

corroborated Messerli’s account. The referee recommended that the district court award

the HRO, concluding that Castillo’s conduct constituted harassment. The district court

accepted the referee’s recommendation and issued a nearly two-year HRO that prohibited

Castillo from contacting Messerli and from coming within one-half mile of Messerli’s

home or the children’s school. The district court included an exception to the no-contact

provision to allow the parties to participate in any alternative-dispute resolution ordered in

the family court proceeding. Castillo appeals.




                                              4
                                         DECISION

       A district court may grant an HRO request if it finds that the petitioner was a victim

of “harassment.” 

, subd. 5 (2022). “Harassment,” as relevant here,

is defined as “repeated incidents of intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or gestures that have

a substantial adverse effect or are intended to have a substantial adverse effect on the safety,

security, or privacy of another.” 

, subd. 1(a)(1) (2022). To award an

HRO, the district court must find both an “objectively unreasonable conduct or intent on

the part of the harasser” and “objectively reasonable belief on the part of the person subject

to harassing conduct.” Peterson v. Johnson, 

 (Minn. App. 2008)

(quotation omitted). We review the district court’s harassment determination for an abuse

of discretion, and we will not set aside its findings of fact unless those findings are clearly

erroneous. Kush v. Mathison, 

 (Minn. App. 2004), rev. denied (Minn.

Sept. 29, 2004). Castillo contends that the district court abused its discretion because the

record does not establish that he acted with a harassing intent or that Messerli had an

objectively reasonable belief that she was being harassed. We disagree.

       The referee found that Castillo went to the school to intimidate and harass Messerli

by “antagonizing [her], getting her flustered, pushing her buttons and embarrassing her in

front of her community.” Castillo asks us to reject this finding and to instead conclude that

his intent was to exercise his parenting time. We decline to do so for two reasons. First,

the referee expressly discredited Castillo’s testimony to that effect, and “credibility

determinations are the province of the trier of fact.” Peterson, 

. Second,

the district court’s determination that Castillo’s conduct was inconsistent with an attempted


                                               5
exercise of parenting time is supported by the record. Although we do not condone or

excuse Messerli’s unilateral decision to deny Castillo his court-ordered parenting time, we

note that Castillo did not seek the family court’s assistance in enforcing the parenting-time

order and instead chose to engage in disruptive, harassing conduct and speech designed to

intimidate, harass, and embarrass Messerli. See Berg v. Wiley, 

(Minn. 1978) (“In our modern society, with the availability of prompt and sufficient legal

remedies as described, there is no place and no need for self-help . . . .”). Castillo followed

Messerli into the school, walked behind her, clapped his hands and mocked her, and

pursued her to her car while filming her. He called Messerli a “kidnapper” and an “abusive

mother” in front of the children, school staff, and other parents. This conduct and speech

are not, as Castillo contends, “objectively reasonable.” 1 And although Castillo rightly

complains about Messerli’s acts in violation of the parenting-time order, our review on

appeal is limited to whether Castillo’s behavior was objectively unreasonable.             His

statements and actions, which are unrelated to requests or efforts to exercise his parenting

time, support the referee’s finding that Castillo acted with a harassing intent.

       The record also supports the district court’s determination that Messerli held an

objectively reasonable belief that Castillo’s conduct was harassing. Castillo’s conduct was


1
  Castillo also argues that his statements to Messerli cannot be harassment because he is
immune from liability under 

 (2022). That statute precludes liability
for “[l]awful conduct or speech that is genuinely aimed in whole or in part at procuring
favorable government action.” 

. The referee found that Castillo’s
conduct was intended to harass, embarrass, and intimidate Messerli. There is no evidence
in the record that Castillo engaged in this harassing conduct so as to procure favorable
government action.


                                              6
so severe that the school staff would mediate during pickup, the school developed a safety

plan, and on at least one occasion, another parent intervened on behalf of Messerli. Castillo

repeatedly thwarted that safety plan by changing his arrival time and location in a manner

designed to guarantee that he would interact with Messerli. Castillo’s repeated intrusions

caused Messerli to lose weight and sleep. In light of this credited record evidence, the

district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that Messerli had an objectively

reasonable belief that she was being harassed.

       Affirmed.




                                             7