Under these circumstances, we conclude that appellant was given adequate opportunity to be heard and present evidence to contradict that provided by respondents. Appellant argues that the district court's findings are not supported by the evidence and are insufficient to support the issuance of a harassment restraining order. She insists that her actions were reasonable and appropriately related to the interests of her children, of whom she shares joint physical and legal custody with respondent James Fenske. Although appellant alleges that many of her contacts were not uninvited, respondents allege otherwise and claim that they repeatedly warned appellant to not contact them at home and to contact them only by mail or through written correspondence carried by the children. Appellant next argues that there is no evidence to support the finding that she intended to adversely affect respondents' privacy and that her actions were solely motivated by the children's best interests.
Intent is shown by circumstantial evidence, and can be inferred from surrounding circumstances.
Appellant's affidavit admits that she had 14 personal contacts with respondents over the past four years. Again, given the court's opportunity to assess witness credibility, we cannot conclude that the court's findings are clearly erroneous or unsupported by the record. See Minn. R. Civ. Appellant argues that the district court improperly used information obtained from a mediator and incorporated the mediator's recommendations into its second amended harassment restraining order. Appellant argues that by adopting the mediator's recommendations, the district court violated rules governing mediation.