Motion to terminate an ex parte nondomestic relationship PPO; Initial grant of the PPO; MCL 600.2950a(1); Stalking (MCL 750.411h); Aggravated stalking (MCL 750.411i); Online stalking (MCL 750.411s); Unconsented contact; Hayford v Hayford; Due process; Meaningful opportunity to be heard on the motion to terminate; Cross-examination; HMM v JS

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the ex parte nondomestic relationship PPO at issue. As to respondent’s motion to terminate the PPO, it held that while “the trial court erred by omitting cross-examination of the parties, respondent” failed to show this error affected the outcome. Thus, it affirmed the order denying his motion. As to the initial issuance of the PPO, petitioner detailed in her petition “that after she declined respondent’s repeated and unsolicited offers to perform home repairs or deliver meals, respondent continued to contact petitioner at her place of employment, appeared at her residence without invitation, monitored her social media activity, and criticized her online content and personal presentation. [She] asserted that, due to the escalating nature of respondent’s communications and his refusal to discontinue contact despite her requests,” she emailed him “outlining her concerns and informing him of her intent to block further communications. [She] further contended that respondent replied to her email in a manner she found cruel and frightening, disregarding her express concerns.” She also cited an incident where she delayed leaving her home after seeing him walk past “approximately five times; when she eventually left to walk her dog, respondent followed her, prompting petitioner to flee and seek assistance from a neighbor.” The court found that her petition set “forth allegations of numerous impermissible acts that constitute stalking with the meaning of MCL 750.411h and” 750.411i. As to the denial of the motion to terminate the PPO, only the parties testified at the hearing, neither was cross-examined, and counsel for neither party “expressly requested the right to cross-examination.” The court found that respondent did “not sufficiently demonstrate on appeal how cross-examination of petitioner would have altered the outcome of the proceedings, as the unwanted communications forming the basis of the PPO were essentially undisputed, regardless of [his] reasons for contacting” her. It distinguished this case from HMM, concluding it was unable to find “that absence of the cross-examination significantly curtailed respondent’s liberty interests, was inconsistent with substantial justice, or seriously undermined the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of the PPO proceeding.”