Motion to terminate an ex parte domestic-relationship personal protection order (PPO); MCL 600.2950(1) & (4); MCL 750.411h(1); Hayford v Hayford

Holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying respondent’s motion to terminate the ex parte domestic PPO obtained by petitioner, the court affirmed. Petitioner sought the PPO “on the grounds that respondent, while drunk, had physically assaulted and sexually assaulted her twice in 2020.” When she filed the petition for a PPO in 2/22 she contended that he had recently started drinking again. Her testimony at the hearing on the “motion to terminate the PPO indicated that while [they] were with respondent’s friend at a lake house on [3/7/20], respondent became intoxicated and punched” her in the face, causing a black eye. She also testified that when she slept at his apartment on 5/10/20, “respondent, without her consent, tried to penetrate her and have sex with her, but he was unable to maintain an erection ‘because he was so inebriated.’” Petitioner additionally testified that in 8/20, he again “without her consent, touched her over her underwear.” She further testified that in 2/22, when he began again drinking heavily, “she no longer felt safe living with [him] because he had physically and sexually assaulted [her] in the past while he was drinking.” He denied the allegations. The court concluded “petitioner presented evidence of two previous acts of unconsented contact that caused [her] to suffer emotional distress as required by MCL 750.411h(1)(a).” It noted that her “testimony about the circumstances of each act were, in part, supported by” that of respondent, as he acknowledged they were together with his friend in 3/20 at a lake house “and that respondent drank a couple times a week around the time of the alleged incidents.” While he contested her credibility, the court deferred to the trial court’s assessment. Her “testimony, which the trial court deemed credible, supported [its] finding that there was reasonable cause to believe respondent might commit a prohibited act under MCL 600.2950(1). [She] showed that [he] previously committed two or more acts of unconsented contact that caused petitioner to suffer emotional distress, and respondent had recently begun engaging in the same conduct that [she] alleged resulted in the previous physical and sexual assaults.”