Paul A. Rosberg, appellant,
Kelly R. Rosberg, appellee.
1. Judgments: Injunction: Appeal and
Error. A protection order is analogous to an
injunction. Accordingly, the grant or denial of a protection
order is reviewed de novo on the record.
2. Records: Pleadings: Appeal and Error. In
the absence of a bill of exceptions, an appellate court
examines and considers only the pleadings in conjunction with
the judgment reviewed. When a transcript, containing the
pleadings and order in question, is sufficient to present the
issue for appellate disposition, a bill of exceptions is
unnecessary to preserve an alleged error of law regarding the
proceedings under review.
3. Records: Pleadings: Presumptions: Appeal and
Error. Where there is no bill of exceptions, an
appellate court is limited on review to an examination of the
pleadings. If they are sufficient to support the judgment, it
will be presumed on appeal that the evidence supports the
trial court's orders and judgment.
4. Criminal Law: Statutes. Nebraska's
stalking and harassment statutes are given an objective
construction, and the victim's experience resulting from
the perpetrator's conduct should be assessed on an
5. Criminal Law: Judgments. Under
Nebraska's stalking and harassment statutes, the inquiry
is whether a reasonable victim would be seriously terrified,
threatened, or intimidated by the perpetrator's conduct.
6. Judgments. When a trial court determines
an ex parte temporary harassment protection order is not
warranted, an evidentiary hearing is not mandated under the
harassment protection order statute.
7. Judgments: Pleadings: Affidavits. In
harassment protection order proceedings, a trial court has
the discretion to direct a respondent to show cause why an
order should not be entered or, alternatively, the court [25
Neb.App. 857] can dismiss the petition if insufficient
grounds have been stated in the petition and affidavit.
from the District Court for Knox County: James G. Kube,
A. Rosberg, pro se.
appearance for appellee.
Riedmann and Bishop, Judges, and Inbody, Judge, Retired.
Rosberg (Rosberg) sought a harassment protection order
against his wife, Kelly R. Rosberg (Kelly), in the district
court for Knox County. Rosberg appeals, pro se, from the
district court's order dismissing his petition; he claims
that the district court erred by not affording him an
opportunity to be heard and that a harassment protection
order should have been entered. We affirm.
November 4, 2016, Rosberg filed a "Petition and
Affidavit to Obtain Harassment Protection Order" against
Kelly pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-311.09 (Reissue
2016). He sought a protection order for himself and his five
children. His allegations of harassment are summarized as
follows: From August 2012 to November 4, 2016, Kelly
"lied to [Rosberg's] probation officer 3 times and
[Rosberg] had to go to jail for 16 days and pay an attorney
$10, 000 and all the fict[it]ious charges they had were
drop[p]ed by the federal Judge"; Kelly allows the
children to be around a "life time" registered sex
offender; Kelly leaves the children for extended periods of
time and lets the children "do most anything, " and
the children are engaging in problematic behavior; Kelly
committed perjury by making up a lie that Rosberg earned
$250, 000 per year, which lie resulted in a sentence of jail
time for Rosberg; Kelly lied to a Platte County judge so [25
Neb.App. 858] Rosberg "could not see [the] children for
one year"; Kelly "harassed all of us by preventing
us from having visitation since July 12, 2015"; Kelly
makes the children believe her lies by "continually
disparaging" Rosberg; Kelly refused to allow the
children to attend family weddings; Rosberg is "sure
[Kelly] is mentally sick"; Rosberg believes it is unsafe
for the children to be around Kelly or her boyfriend, a sex
offender, and believes she should only have supervised
visitation; and Rosberg is "afraid [Kelly] may have
someone or herself plant guns on [him] like she did before
when she tried to get [him] railroaded into federal prison
for 11 years."
November 14, 2016, the district court entered an "Order
Dismissing Petition Without Hearing, " which stated, in
Upon consideration of the petition and affidavit, the Court
finds that the requested relief should be denied and the
petition should be dismissed (specific findings, if any, set
Insufficient allegations to support the entry of a
protection order. Also, this [is] a matter which if addressed
at all, should be addressed in the pending domestic
litigation between the parties.
THEREFORE ORDERED that the petition for issuance of a
protection order is denied and petition is dismissed without
prejudice. On November 17, 2016, Rosberg filed a "Motion
requesting Hearing." He requested a hearing to
"prove his allegations that [Kelly] ser[i]ously
th[r]eatens, endangers, and intim[i]dates [Rosberg and the
children]." He added that the children are in danger
when Kelly allows them to be around a "registered
lifetime sex offender" and that Kelly should not be on
his premises "where she or her ...