The district court granted the requested order for protection, which limited respondent's visitation to one supervised hour per week. Appellant does not object to that ruling. Nevertheless, appellant contends that the court erroneously found that no sexual abuse had occurred and that appellant had coached the daughter to make the allegations. Appellant argues that these findings may reduce the daughter's credibility in future custody or other proceedings involving allegations of sexual abuse. In essence, appellant wishes to contest the trial court's findings of fact, even though she was awarded the order for protection she sought.
Appellate courts lack the resources to respond to such pointless appeals.
A prevailing party may not separately appeal a district court's findings of fact. Johnson v. American Econ. District courts are equipped to recognize that unnecessary findings like those objected to here are not binding in subsequent proceedings. Appellant contends this issue is not moot because she was forced to incur attorney fees to defeat the petition and because the mere fact that the petition was issued is a black mark on her record. This issue is moot because no remedy can now be granted by this court.