Criminal contempt of court; MCL 600.1715(1); In re Contempt of Henry; In re Contempt of Murphy; Motion to terminate an ex parte domestic personal protection order (PPO); MCL 600.2950(1) & (4); “Stalking” (MCL 750.411h(1)(d)); “Course of conduct” (MCL 750.411h(1)(a)); “Harassment” (MCL 750.411h(1)(c)); “Unconsented contact” (MCL 750.411h(1)(e))

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding respondent in criminal contempt or in issuing an ex parte PPO and denying his motion to terminate it. In moving to terminate the PPO, respondent denied the allegations in the petition and contended petitioner failed to meet the statutory requirements. At the hearing on his motion, “petitioner testified in detail about the events leading up to her filing the petition for a PPO.” Respondent appeared at the hearing by video conference and in propria persona. In finding him in contempt, the trial court determined “that respondent ‘tremendously’ disrupted the court proceedings by intentionally asking inappropriate questions and interrupting the court despite being repeatedly instructed on how to ask proper questions and the directive that he must follow the court’s rules. [It] also found that respondent disregarded all of its instructions meant to ensure the hearing was held in an orderly fashion and had a ‘complete disregard for the proper procedure and decorum in a courtroom.’” The trial court determined that his “continually disruptive behavior heavily interfered with its ability to maintain a proper record.” The court concluded there was “an ample amount of ‘competent evidence’ in the record to support the trial court’s factual findings.” As to the issuance of the ex parte PPO, the court held that evidentiary hearing testimony established “reasonable cause to believe that respondent engaged in conduct that constituted stalking. MCL 600.2950(1)(j). Petitioner testified that respondent threatened to physically harm her and her children multiple times, to burn her house down with her inside of it, and to hire another individual to assault her eldest child for disrespecting him.” She also testified he “repeatedly threw objects at her and punched things near her. [She] testified that [he] destroyed property, including walls, windows, doors, and various electronics, and she had called the police three or four times as a result. The trial court had issued an ex parte PPO against” him a year earlier “for similar behavior, and [he] violated that PPO by messaging or calling petitioner on several occasions.” Affirmed.