This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat.  480A.08, subd. 3 (1994).


Deborah Annette York, petitioner,


Denise Ann Wood,

Filed August 13, 1996

Toussaint, Chief Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. HA-95-16183

Philip G. Villaume, Suite 675, 7900 International Drive, 
Bloomington, MN 55425 (for respondent)

Linda M. Ojala, Kurzman, Grant & Ojala, 2445 Park Avenue 
South, Minneapolis, MN 55404 (for appellant)

	Considered and decided by Huspeni, Presiding Judge, 
Toussaint, Chief Judge, and Foley, Judge.*

U N P U B L I S H E D  O P I N I O N

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
	Respondent Deborah York, a teacher at the grade school 
that appellant Denise Wood's daughter attends, filed a petition for a 
restraining order against appellant after a series of disruptive 
incidents occurring throughout the 1994-95 school year and 
culminating in an October 1995 episode where appellant 
intentionally positioned herself to encounter respondent after being 
instructed to have no contact with her.  Appellant now challenges 
the district court's decision to issue the restraining order, 
contending that the order violates her due process rights and that 
her conduct did not constitute "harassment" as that word is 
statutorily defined.  We affirm.


	Appellant raises two arguments against the district court's 
order.  First, appellant contends she was not given notice that her 
action of purposefully encountering respondent inside the school 
building was prohibited.  But in an August letter that appellant 
admits receiving, the school principal informed appellant:
You should be aware that an attorney representing 
teacher Deborah A. York has informed the school 
district that Mrs. York desires not to have any future 
contact, either directly or indirectly, with you under 
any circumstances.  To be specific, Mrs. York does 
not wish to talk to you, either in person or on the 
telephone, or to encounter you in or near her 
classroom * * *.

	Appellant clearly had notice that she was not to 
purposefully encounter respondent.  Nonetheless, the district court 
found that on October 9, 1995, appellant went 30 feet beyond her 
purported destination of the school library to respondent's 
classroom, where she glared at respondent.  The record supports, 
and we find no error in the district court's decision that appellant 
knew her action violated the instructions she had been given in 
August concerning contact with respondent.
	We do not find appellant's argument that the school 
implicitly gave her permission to be in the school building after 
school hours to pick up her daughter relevant.  Appellant's 
reasoning confuses the act of entering the school after hours 
without following the established check-in procedure with the 
distinctly different act of proceeding to respondent's classroom and 
glaring at her.  Even if appellant was not reasonably notified that 
she could not enter the school building after hours without 
permission, she was clearly notified that, while in or around the 
school for whatever reason, appellant was not intentionally to 
make any contact with respondent "in or near her classroom."   By 
walking past the library, intentionally approaching respondent's 
classroom, and glaring at respondent, appellant violated the 
conditions of the principal's August letter, regardless of any 
implied permission appellant may have had to be in the school 
	Second, appellant contends her actions do not constitute 
"harassment" as that term is statutorily defined.   Minn. Stat.  
609.748, subd. 1(a)(1994), defines harassment as:
repeated, intrusive, or unwanted acts, words, or 
gestures that are intended to adversely affect the 
safety, security, or privacy of another * * *.
	Respondent alleged in her petition for a restraining order 
and in her testimony before the district court that during the 1994-
95 school year appellant disrupted respondent's classroom daily by 
shouting at respondent in front of her class, lecturing her in front of 
the class, cleaning the classroom during lectures, and otherwise 
acting erratically and frightening respondent and her students.  The 
district court's finding that "the parties' relationship was 
contentious" shows that the court considered respondent's 
testimony regarding appellant's behavior in 1994-95; its finding 
that the principal had to substitute for respondent when appellant 
was scheduled to assist respondent's class indicates that appellant's 
behavior was disruptive.  Moreover, the district court found that 
appellant purposefully went out of her way to glare at respondent 
in October 1995.  The district court was well within its discretion 
to conclude, based on these findings regarding the parties' 
relationship and the October incident, that appellant had "engaged 
in harassing conduct that was reasonably understood to adversely 
affect the safety, security, and privacy of" respondent.  See Minn. 
R. Civ. P. 52.01 (a district court's findings of fact shall not be 
overturned on appeal unless clearly erroneous);  Maxfield v. 
Maxfield, 452 N.W.2d 219, 221 (Minn. 1990) (where a district 
court weighs statutory criteria in light of found basic facts, an 
appellate court reviews the findings of fact under an abuse of 
discretion standard). 
	Appellant's contention that the district court erroneously 
refused to permit her discovery is not properly before us because 
no transcript of the discovery request or the court's refusal was 
made and appellant has provided no substitute transcript.  See  
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 110.03 (where a transcript was not made, 
appealing party must provide a substitute statement of pertinent 
proceedings approved by opposing party and district court).


     *Retired judge of the district court, serving as judge of the 
Minnesota Court of Appeals by appointment pursuant to Minn. 
Const. art. VI,  10.