Motion to terminate an ex parte PPO; Domestic-relationship PPOs; MCL 600.2950; Reasonable cause

While the trial court did not apply the wrong legal standard in ruling on respondent’s motion to terminate the ex parte PPO, the court held that it abused its discretion in denying his motion. The evidence petitioner presented “was insufficient for the trial court to find there was reasonable cause to believe that respondent might commit a prohibited act under” MCL 600.2950(1). The parties filed for divorce shortly after these PPO proceedings began. The trial court’s ruling “appeared to exclusively rely on” testimony by petitioner that respondent’s statements about an altercation, given at a hearing in the divorce case, made her fearful. The trial court was in the best position to assess her credibility, and the court did “not doubt the genuine nature of petitioner’s fear. However, the trial court’s credibility determination did not justify its ultimate conclusion that” she satisfied her burden of showing “reasonable cause to believe that respondent ‘may commit’ an act prohibited under MCL 600.2950(1).” The statutory language “in MCL 600.2950(4) is forward-looking, indicating that the trial court must find reasonable cause to believe that respondent may commit a prohibited act in the future. Petitioner’s evidence established that respondent had previously caused her a reasonable apprehension of violence but did not demonstrate the possibility—beyond speculation—to believe” he may do so again. The court noted it was proper to consider his “testimony at the divorce hearing and whether that may have caused petitioner a reasonable apprehension of violence.” But in light of her admission she punched him “in the face and that the responding police officer sought charges against petitioner for domestic assault,” the court found that the trial court abused its discretion in denying respondent’s motion on the basis of his “testimony about this incident. The trial court gave no consideration to the police officer’s findings and how those findings may have contextualized respondent’s statement.” It also failed to adequately explain how evidence of his testimony met petitioner’s burden. Its “reasoning was particularly insufficient because respondent’s testimony was the only piece of specific evidence” it cited to support its decision. There was also no evidence “that respondent had violated the trial court’s orders in the 10-month period between the” initial PPO’s issuance and the motion hearing.