HRO vs. OFP Conflicts in Minnesota: What Happens When Both Parties File?

When relationships break down and conflicts escalate, both sides may feel the need for protection. In Minnesota, that protection often comes through orders for protection (OFPs) or harassment restraining orders (HROs). But what happens when both parties file against each other? Can two orders exist at the same time — and what are the legal consequences of dueling claims?

This blog explains how these orders work under Minnesota law, what happens when both sides seek protection, and why working with an experienced family law attorney is essential to protect your rights and reputation.

Contact a local attorney today. 

How HROs and OFPs work in Minnesota

Order for Protection (OFP)

An OFP is granted under the Minnesota Domestic Abuse Act (Minn. Stat. § 518B.01). It applies only when there is a family or household relationship, such as:

• Spouses or former spouses 
• Parents and children 
• People who live or have lived together 
• People who share a child 
• Individuals in a romantic or sexual relationship 

An OFP is meant to prevent domestic abuse, which Minnesota law defines as:

• Physical harm, bodily injury, or assault 
• The infliction of fear of imminent harm 
• Criminal sexual conduct 
• Interference with another’s safety or liberty 

You can learn more about how OFPs work on the Minnesota Courts’ official site or by visiting Martine Law’s domestic violence defense page.

Harassment Restraining Order (HRO)

An HRO, under Minn. Stat. § 609.748, is broader in scope. It can be used between any individuals, regardless of family or relationship, and is designed to prevent harassment, which includes:

• Repeated, intrusive, or unwanted acts or communications 
• Words or gestures that cause substantial emotional distress 
• Targeted residential picketing 
• Certain online or digital harassment 

For more information, see Martine Law’s guide on Minnesota harassment cases.

When both parties file: Understanding cross-petitions

When both individuals feel threatened, misunderstood, or victimized, it’s not uncommon for cross-petitions — where both sides file HROs, OFPs, or one of each.
However, Minnesota courts handle them separately, even if they arise from the same incident.

Each petition is judged on its own merits.
That means:

• The court will examine evidence, testimony, and credibility for each filing independently. 
• A person can both request protection and be subject to it simultaneously. 
• Each side can receive — or be denied — their order depending on what the judge finds. 

For example:

• If both partners allege physical harm, the court may grant mutual OFPs with separate restrictions. 
• If one claim shows harassment but not abuse, the court may issue an HRO for one party and deny the OFP for the other. 

The result depends heavily on evidence, such as:

• Police or medical reports 
• Text messages, emails, or voicemails 
• Witness statements 
• Photographs or recordings 
• Prior court orders or criminal charges 

Can both HROs or OFPs be active at the same time?

Yes — but it’s complicated. Minnesota judges are cautious about issuing mutual orders.
Under Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 6(a)(2), the court cannot issue mutual OFPs unless both parties file petitions and the judge makes specific findings that each committed abuse or harassment against the other.

The same principle applies to HROs. Each side must prove their case separately. The court might:

• Issue both orders but with different restrictions (for example, separate no-contact provisions). 
• Combine hearings to review both petitions together for efficiency. 
• Dismiss one petition if it appears retaliatory or unsupported by credible evidence. 

How the court determines credibility and intent

In cross-filings, judges often look for:

1. Consistency in testimony — Are statements stable across police reports, affidavits, and hearings? 
2. Evidence of retaliation or manipulation — Does one filing appear to be a response to the other, aimed at gaining leverage in a divorce, custody, or criminal case? 
3. History of violence or harassment — Prior incidents, DANCOs (Domestic Abuse No Contact Orders), or criminal charges carry weight. 
4. Corroborating witnesses or documents — Texts, injuries, or third-party observations matter. 

If a judge suspects one party is using an HRO or OFP strategically — for example, to influence a child custody dispute — the court may deny or dismiss that petition and could even award attorney’s fees to the wrongly accused party.

For deeper insight into Minnesota custody and protection issues, explore Martine Law’s family law services and child custody guidance.

Common outcomes when both parties file

Here’s what can happen when both sides seek restraining orders:

1. Both petitions granted:
   Each person is ordered to stay away or avoid contact with the other.
   Violating either order can lead to arrest or criminal charges. 
2. One petition granted, one denied:
   The judge finds only one side credible or supported by evidence. 
3. Both petitions denied:
   Neither party proves harassment or abuse under Minnesota law. 
4. One order modified or dismissed later:
   If circumstances change, either side can ask the court to modify or dismiss an order. 

Practical and legal challenges of mutual orders

Mutual orders can be legally risky and confusing.
If both sides are prohibited from contact, even a simple text about shared property or child exchanges can lead to a violation for both.

These violations carry serious consequences:

• Criminal charges for violating a protection or restraining order 
• Jail time or fines depending on the violation level 
• Impact on child custody and visitation arrangements 

If there are shared children involved, the court may require communication through attorneys, third-party apps, or supervised exchanges.

To learn how to safely manage parenting time while under an order, see Martine Law’s guide to DANCO violations during child exchanges.

What to do if both you and the other party file

• Hire an attorney immediately.
  Legal representation is crucial in cross-filing situations. Your lawyer can evaluate evidence, prepare for hearings, and protect you from unintentional violations.
  Martine Law’s family and criminal defense lawyers handle cases where protection orders overlap with custody or criminal matters. 
• Gather all communication and records.
  Save texts, emails, call logs, and social media messages. 
• Follow all court orders strictly.
  Even if the other party contacts you, responding may count as a violation. 
• Avoid retaliation or escalation.
  Any contact or public posting can be used against you in court. 
• Prepare credible evidence for your petition or defense.
  Your attorney will help you show a clear timeline, evidence of threat or harassment, and why protection is justified. 

Key takeaways

• An OFP deals with domestic abuse between family or household members, while an HRO applies to harassment between any individuals. 
• Both sides can file — but each petition must stand on its own evidence. 
• Courts are cautious with mutual orders and require clear proof from both sides. 
• Violating any order, even unintentionally, can lead to criminal charges. 
• Legal guidance is essential to navigate complex cross-filing situations safely. 

If you or someone you know is involved in a mutual HRO or OFP situation, contact Martine Law today for compassionate, experienced legal help.
Our Minnesota attorneys understand both sides of these cases and will work to protect your rights, your safety, and your future.

Contact Martine Law to schedule a confidential consultation.