Sufficiency of the facts to warrant the issuance & continuance of a PPO; Burden of proof; Domestic-relationship PPO; MCL 600.2950; Burden of persuasion; Judicial bias; People v Stevens; Sanctions under MCR 1.109; Concealed pistol license (CPL)

The court held that there were sufficient facts to warrant the issuance and continuance of the PPO, and that respondent failed to overcome the presumption of judicial impartiality. The trial court also did not abuse its discretion in failing to sanction petitioner under MCR 1.109. The case arose from a domestic-relationship ex parte PPO entered against respondent that prohibited him from possessing firearms and obtaining a CPL. As to whether there were sufficient facts to warrant the issuance and continuance of the PPO, he appeared “to assume that because the PPO prohibited him from ‘stalking as defined under MCL 7500.411h and MCL 750.411i,’ petitioner sought a stalking-type PPO under MCL 600.2950a. While the trial court never explicitly stated that the PPO was granted under MCL 600.2950, ‘[t]he nature of the petitioner’s relationship with the respondent and the respondent’s acts govern which form of PPO is appropriate.’” It was undisputed that the parties “were previously married, have children, and are now divorced.” Because they “were previously married and the trial court’s PPO specified a ‘domestic relationship,’ the PPO was a domestic-relationship PPO under MCL 600.2950.” The court then turned to whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to terminate the PPO. He contended that the trial court erred “because ‘[t]here was no hint or threat of any assaultive behavior by’ him.” To support his claim, he contended that it “wrongly accepted petitioner’s version of events over his version. Respondent’s argument is problematic in two ways.” First, he essentially asked the court “to engage in a credibility determination on the basis of the testimony presented to the trial court. The trial court credited petitioner’s testimony over respondent’s testimony.” However, the court defers “to the trial court for credibility determinations.” Further, it was undisputed that there were 18 phone calls between respondent’s phone and one of the children’s “phone on a particular day, and respondent conceded that he placed the tracking application on” the phone. “Petitioner asserted that by making the phone calls and placing the tracking application, respondent” was harassing her through the children. While he claimed that she was not credible, the trial court properly considered her “statements in support of her petition and did not abuse its discretion in deciding to continue the PPO on the basis of its conclusion that respondent might commit one of the prohibited acts.” Affirmed.