Background
TB and LRW share a minor child and have been engaged in contentious custody litigation in Michigan and Arizona. Arizona was determined to be the proper state to decide custody, and an Arizona court awarded the parties joint legal custody and granted LRW parenting time. After TB allegedly refused to comply with the parenting-time order, LRW traveled to Michigan and pursued proceedings to register and enforce the Arizona order.
TB obtained an ex parte personal protection order against LRW in Wayne Circuit Court, alleging stalking, harassment, assaultive conduct, and efforts to remove the child under supposedly invalid orders. LRW moved to terminate the PPO, contending that his contacts and visits were efforts to exercise court-ordered parenting time. At the termination hearing, the circuit court refused to consider documents from the custody proceedings and denied LRW’s motion based largely on its assessment that TB was credible and LRW was not.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed and directed the circuit court to terminate the PPO. Although TB’s petition alleged facts supplying reasonable cause to believe LRW might commit conduct covered by Michigan’s PPO statute, it did not justify proceeding without notice. Most allegations were stale, LRW lived in Arizona, most contacts occurred by email, and TB did not allege recent physical harm or direct contact establishing imminent danger. The circuit court therefore abused its discretion by issuing the PPO ex parte.
The circuit court also denied LRW procedural due process at the termination hearing by refusing to consider the custody orders. Those documents were central to whether LRW’s conduct served the legitimate purpose of exercising parenting time, whether TB sought leverage in the custody dispute, and whether her account was credible. Because the exclusion prevented LRW from meaningfully presenting his case, it constituted plain error affecting substantial rights and the integrity and fairness of the proceeding. The court declined to address LRW’s unpreserved res judicata argument.
Key Takeaways
- Serious allegations may establish grounds for a PPO without establishing the immediate and irreparable harm required to issue it ex parte.
- At a hearing to terminate an ex parte PPO, the petitioner bears the burden of justifying continuation, and the respondent must receive a meaningful opportunity to present relevant evidence.
- A PPO court may not disregard existing custody and parenting-time orders when they bear on whether challenged conduct had a legitimate purpose and on the parties’ credibility.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that ex parte PPOs require evidence of imminent harm making advance notice intolerable or dangerous, not merely allegations that could support an ordinary PPO. It also warns courts to examine related custody proceedings when assessing alleged stalking or harassment, particularly because a PPO can override parenting-time arrangements and potentially be used to gain leverage in a custody dispute.
Although the PPO had apparently expired, the appeal remained live because its entry in the Law Enforcement Information Network and possible effect on firearm licensing carried continuing consequences. The court therefore required formal termination on remand.