Opinion ID: 889775
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Was there sufficient evidence to support a permanent order of protection?

Text: ¶ 25 Kalin's claim that the evidence was insufficient on grounds that it did not establish repeated acts of stalking in Montana is rejected for the reasons discussed under Issue 1. ¶ 26 Kalin also claims there is not substantial evidence to support the District Court's findings that he mailed Jordan the anonymous collage in December 2009 and sent her the gold-plated rose. The court relied on Jordan's explanations of why she was certain Kalin sent the two unwanted and bizarre mailings to Montana. It was within the court's function as the finder of fact to assess the credibility of witnesses. See M.R. Civ. P. 52(a). The court's finding that Kalin's denials were not credible also was well within its role as the finder of fact. See In re the Marriage of Nies, 2003 MT 100, ¶ 18, 315 Mont. 260, 68 P.3d 697. ¶ 27 Having reviewed the record, we conclude substantial credible evidence supports the District Court's findings of fact and the findings are not otherwise clearly erroneous. The evidence was sufficient for the court to issue a permanent order of protection.