Order for Protection Extensions and Subsequent Orders

Did you know that if a Petitioner has an existing Order for Protection (OFP), or has had one in the past, they do not need to file a brand-new Petition when they are seeking additional protection?

In those circumstances, a Petitioner may only need to file a request for an extension or a subsequent order. This is true both if the Petitioner is concerned about their current OFP expiring, or if it has expired and they need continued protection against the same Respondent. This is also true even if the Petitioner dismissed their previous order early, as long as a final OFP was issued.

Minnesota Statute 518B.01, subd. 6(a) states, in part, that:

(a)    Upon application, notice to all parties, and hearing, the court may extend the relief granted in an existing order for protection or, if a petitioner's order for protection is no longer in effect when an application for subsequent relief is made, grant a new order.

A Petitioner may qualify to file for an extension or a subsequent order if they can show one of the following (they need not show all):

(1) the respondent has violated a prior or existing order for protection;

(2) the petitioner is reasonably in fear of physical harm from the respondent;

(3) the respondent has engaged in the act of harassment within the meaning of section 609.749, subdivision 2; or

(4) the respondent is incarcerated and about to be released, or has recently been released from incarceration.

Notably, a petitioner does not need to show actual physical harm, or that physical harm is imminent, to obtain an extension or a subsequent order under this subdivision.

For many Petitioners, this is a lower standard of proof than filing for an initial Petition, and thus it may be simpler for them to obtain continued protection from the Respondent. For instance, a Petitioner is more likely to be able to demonstrate that they are in ‘reasonable’ fear of a Respondent as opposed to demonstrating that the Respondent has put them in imminent fear of harm. In one case, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that “[Petitioner’s] testimony about her past fear and [Respondent’s] ongoing controlling behavior, when considered with [Respondent’s] history of domestic abuse, sufficiently supports the district court's finding [to extend the OFP].”

While assisting victims, an advocate’s first step should be to check if the Petitioner has had an OFP in place against this particular Respondent. Advocates may ask their participants directly, but participants may not remember or may have difficulty distinguishing past OFPs from other types of protective orders. Some agencies may have access to an expanded form of MNCIS (the remote court access system provided by the Minnesota Courts) that will help advocates see if an OFP has been filed and granted in the past. Other agencies may have to visit a public access terminal at their local courthouse.

It is recommended to use the form entitled “Application of Extension of or Subsequent Order for Protection.” This is a statewide form available on the Minnesota courts website at https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/CourtForms/OFP701_Current.pdf?ext=.pdf. Without using this form, a Judge may not recognize that the lower standard of proof is applicable and may treat this as a brand-new Petition.