This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1994). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS C3-96-508 Deborah Annette York, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Denise Ann Wood, Appellant. Filed August 13, 1996 Affirmed 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. D E C I S I O N 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 building. 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). Affirmed. *Retired judge of the district court, serving as judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.