Jmp v. Bc
356237
| Mich. Ct. App. | Mar 24, 2022Background
- Petitioner obtained a personal protection order (PPO) for herself and her minor daughter after a domestic relationship with respondent ended; allegations included following, harassment, intimidation, threats, placing mice and roaches in petitioner’s home, being held against her will, phone confiscation, and a sexual assault.
- Petitioner testified she suffers severe PTSD; respondent denied the allegations.
- The trial court denied respondent’s motion to terminate the PPO and granted petitioner’s motion to extend it; respondent appealed.
- Respondent raised three arguments on appeal: (1) the court minimized evidence that petitioner continued contact (an explicit video) after the breakup; (2) the court relied on unidentified studies and its own views of domestic violence without expert testimony; and (3) petitioner’s fear was unsubstantiated because respondent had not contacted her for a year and had taken steps to protect himself.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the extension for abuse of discretion and affirmed, finding the trial court’s credibility determinations and stated reasons (including respondent’s background as a probation officer, access to resources, pending criminal charges, and reciprocal accusations about offers to drop charges) were within the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in assessing petitioner’s continued contact (e.g., an explicit video) after the breakup | Petitioner emphasized credibility of her testimony that she attempted to end the relationship and later feared respondent | Respondent argued the court downplayed petitioner’s lack of denial and that she acted like the relationship continued | The court may resolve credibility; the court’s credibility findings were within its discretion and not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether the trial court improperly relied on unidentified studies or its own views of domestic violence without expert testimony | Petitioner relied on the factual record and testimony to justify the PPO extension | Respondent argued the court relied on unsupported views and lacked expert evidence | Absence of expert testimony does not require reversal where the court gave several principled reasons supporting the extension |
| Whether petitioner’s fear was speculative given no contact for about a year and respondent’s protective actions | Petitioner argued ongoing threat given respondent’s knowledge, resources, pending charges, and past conduct | Respondent argued fear was unsubstantiated because he had not contacted petitioner for a year and took steps to avoid false allegations | The court reasonably found petitioner’s fear credible given pending criminal charges, mutual accusations about dropping charges, respondent’s background and resources; extension was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Hayford v. Hayford, 279 Mich. App. 324 (abuse-of-discretion review applies to PPO determinations)
- Pickering v. Pickering, 253 Mich. App. 694 (injunctive relief rests within trial court discretion)
- TM v. MZ, 326 Mich. App. 227 (abuse of discretion occurs when decision is outside range of reasonable and principled outcomes)
- People v. Lemmon, 456 Mich. 625 (credibility determinations are for the trier of fact)