Personal protection order continuation; MCL 600.2950(1)(j) & (4); Stalking definition; MCL 750.411h(1)(e); Burden on termination motion; Hayford v Hayford; Credibility findings; SP v BEK

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying respondent’s motion to terminate the stalking PPO because petitioner met her burden to show continuation was warranted and respondent’s appellate challenges were largely attacks on credibility that the trial court was entitled to resolve. Petitioner, respondent’s aunt, obtained an ex parte PPO on 11/4/24 after alleging respondent assaulted her three times, including an incident where respondent “took off her shoes and threw them,” and tried to damage petitioner’s car; an incident on 6/20/24 where respondent “ran up behind” her and hit her in the back of the head; and a later incident where respondent “ran up to jump” her but a third party intervened. Respondent denied the allegations and argued the dispute was driven by family conflict and financial motives. After a hearing, the trial court continued the PPO and tailored relief by prohibiting respondent from being at the mother’s home when petitioner was present, reasoning petitioner held power of attorney and “had to have access to her.” On appeal, the court explained a PPO may issue to restrain conduct prohibited by the stalking statute, defined as “a willful course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment” that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized or harassed and that actually causes that reaction. The court reiterated the petitioner bears the burden on a termination motion and the trial court must consider the evidence and any history of similar acts. The panel rejected respondent’s credibility arguments, stressing credibility determinations belong to the trial court and petitioner was not required to pinpoint exact dates for every incident, nor was corroboration or a criminal charge required because the statute allows a PPO “whether or not” the respondent has been charged or convicted. The court also held the trial court permissibly considered petitioner’s need to safely enter the mother’s home to perform power-of-attorney duties as part of the practical context for the continued restrictions. Finally, it rejected the claim that petitioner had a pattern of baseless PPO filings because respondent produced no evidence that a separate PPO against another relative was dismissed for lack of credibility. Affirmed.