Grant of a personal protection order (PPO); Mootness exception; TM v MZ; Domestic relations PPO; MCL 600.2950; Stalking; MCL 750.411h; Principle that a PPO need not comply with the Child Custody Act (CCA) under certain circumstances; Hayford v Hayford; Due process; Lack of notice; Kampf v Kampf; Applicability of MCR 3.705(B)(1); Request for ex parte PPO; First Amendment rights; ARM v KJL; Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN)

The court held that the trial court did not err in granting petitioner’s request for an ex parte PPO or in denying respondent’s motion to terminate it. The parties share a child. The court noted that the PPO had expired and there was no record evidence of efforts to continue it, which suggested the case was moot. But a case is not moot “if a respondent argues that a PPO was improperly issued and requests that notice of the PPO’s rescission be reflected in the” LEIN, as was the situation here. While respondent argued the trial court erred in granting petitioner’s request for a PPO, the court concluded that her “actions created reasonable cause to believe that she would commit acts of stalking under MCL 750.411h.” Petitioner sought the PPO after he “received an excessive number of calls and messages from respondent and told [her] to stop contacting him,” but she ignored his request and “also published [his] phone number on social media, which led to threats from an unknown phone number, as well as called the police to petitioner’s house multiple times. Because [he] reasonably felt harassed, intimidated, and concerned for his safety as a result of respondent’s actions, there was reasonable cause to believe [she] committed an act under MCL 600.2950(1). Further, there was reasonable cause to believe that respondent would continue the harassment, considering that [she] explicitly stated that she would be continuing her course of action, including contacting the police every time [he] denied [her] contact with the child.” While she asserted “that her conduct was simply parental communication, the excessiveness and pervasiveness of respondent’s contact with petitioner fails to serve any legitimate purpose.” As to her contention “the PPO was misused to interfere with the custody arrangement[,]” the court noted that it “‘has recognized that a PPO need not comply with the’” CCA under some circumstances, and she failed to show that they did not apply here. The court also rejected her due process and First Amendment arguments. Affirmed.