Ex parte PPO; MCL 600.2950(12); Immediate & irreparable injury; MCR 3.704(G); Motion to terminate PPO; Procedural due process; MCR 3.703(D); Existing custody & parenting-time orders; Stalking; Legitimate purpose

The court held that the circuit court abused its discretion by issuing the ex parte PPO because petitioner failed to establish the immediate and irreparable harm required for ex parte relief, and that respondent was denied procedural due process at the hearing on his motion to terminate the PPO. The parties share a child and had been involved in contentious custody proceedings in Michigan and Arizona. An Arizona court entered an enforceable custody and parenting-time order directing respondent, who lived in Arizona, to retrieve the child from petitioner in Michigan. Petitioner later obtained the Michigan ex parte PPO based largely on allegations of stalking and harassment arising from respondent’s efforts to exercise parenting time. On appeal, the court agreed that the petition’s allegations, viewed alone, established reasonable cause to believe respondent might commit an act prohibited by MCL 600.2950(1). But they did not satisfy the additional requirements for ex parte relief because “most of the allegations were too stale to support a finding of immediate harm.” Respondent lived in Arizona, most unwanted contacts occurred by e-mail, and petitioner did not allege recent physical harm or direct contact. Thus, petitioner failed to show that “‘danger [was] imminent and that [a] delay to notify the respondent [would be] intolerable or in itself dangerous.’” The court further concluded that the circuit court denied respondent due process at the termination hearing by refusing to consider the existing custody orders. It stressed that “a court issuing a PPO cannot simply disregard an existing custody or parenting time order.” The excluded evidence was central to respondent’s contention that his communications and appearances at petitioner’s residence served the legitimate purpose of enforcing parenting time, and it also bore directly on petitioner’s credibility. As a result, “respondent was effectively unable to be heard in a meaningful manner because the circuit court refused to consider pivotal evidence.” The court declined to address his unpreserved res judicata argument. Reversed and remanded for entry of an order terminating the PPO.