Family Law 84: Trial court must issue a PPO if it determines that there is reasonable cause.

Petitioner filed a petition for an ex parte PPO on July 13, 2020. In her petition, petitioner alleged that on July 12, 2020, she had a physical altercation with respondent where he attempted to prevent her from contacting anyone with her phone and took her to another room by her wrists. Petitioner stated that the police were called, and they sent a report of domestic assault to the prosecutor. Petitioner also alleged that respondent used intimidation and fear to get his way during their marriage, and once threatened to kill her if she called the police on him.

Ex Parte PPO

The trial court issued an ex parte PPO for petitioner against respondent

Respondent subsequently filed a motion to terminate this PPO, denying petitioner’s allegations and asserting that her petition was premised on a lie regarding the facts of the July 12, 2020 altercation. Respondent attached the relevant police report, which showed that the reporting police officer sought a charge of domestic assault against petitioner and forwarded that information to the prosecutor’s office. The report indicated that the police officer spoke with petitioner, and petitioner admitted to punching respondent in the face to regain control of her phone.

Petitioner opposed respondent’s motion to terminate. Petitioner alleged that respondent had a long history of abusive behavior, including a domestic violence conviction against an ex-girlfriend and the perpetration of threats and violence against petitioner. The trial court denied respondent’s motion to terminate the PPO.

Cause for Issuance of PPO

Pursuant to MCL 600.2950(4), the trial court must issue a PPO if it determines that there is reasonable cause to believe that the individual to be restrained or enjoined may commit 1 or more of a specified list of acts.

(a) Entering onto premises.

(b) Assaulting, attacking, beating, molesting, or wounding a named individual.

Any other specific act or conduct that imposes upon or interferes with personal liberty or that causes a reasonable apprehension of violence.

The petitioner bears the burden of establishing reasonable cause for issuance of a PPO, and of establishing a justification for the continuance of a PPO at a hearing on the respondent’s motion to terminate the PPO.

Assistance with PPOs

At Aldrich Legal Services, our attorneys and staff understand the stress that can come with family law disputes. We act quickly when allegations of domestic violence are made to file for or contest personal protection orders.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services to schedule a consultation with a lawyer who is dedicated to protecting your interests.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000

MICHIGAN DIVORCE 79: Plaintiff intentionally hindered the sale of the house.

The court found that the parties were equally at fault for the breakdown of the marriage, and it found that Plaintiff had intentionally hindered the sale of the house after the court ordered that it be listed so it could receive a realistic determination of the house’s value. The record showed that Plaintiff had declined several showings.

MICHIGAN FAMILY LAW: DHHS filed its petition in Wayne Circuit Court requesting that the trial court assume jurisdiction over the child.

At the jurisdictional trial, H admitted that she had a substance abuse addiction that somewhat affected her ability to parent her children. The trial court ordered that CKM would remain with M until the custody hearing in a few months.

MICHIGAN FAMILY LAW 96: The trial court did not have the authority to modify the out-of-state support order.

The trial court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to modify the out-of-state spousal-support order. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion to terminate spousal support.

MICHIGAN DIVORCE 78: Mother and father were both unable to adequately parent the children.

Father and mother’s relationship involved domestic violence, and they both abused substances.

MICHIGAN FAMILY LAW 93: Parents’ relationship had become so bitter court determined it was necessary to hold an evidentiary hearing on the issues of custody.

The trial court found that clear and convincing evidence established that a change of custody was in AH’s best interests, noting the parties were unable or unwilling to work together to reach an agreement on AH’s education and medical treatment.

MICHIGAN DIVORCE 21: Plaintiff file a motion to enforcement the judgment of divorce.

The referee recommended that the trial court grant plaintiff’s request for enforcement of the judgment and require the parties to comply with its provisions and further recommended that plaintiff’s request for attorney fees be preserved and awarded should plaintiff have to return to court.

MICHIGAN DIVORCE 76: Defendant had not exercised his parenting time with the children to warrant the award of any child support amount.

Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from judgment and child support. Plaintiff characterized the failed parenting-time arrangement as newly discovered evidence that negated her child support obligation.

DIVORCE 75: The trial court agreed that the long morning commute on school days satisfied the threshold burden for reconsidering custody.

The court expressed concern regarding plaintiff’s failure to appreciate how her actions left the children in a position of having to keep secrets from defendant, caused them uncertainty about their future schooling, and made them feel guilty for telling defendant the truth.

DIVORCE 74: Tax debt generated by the sale of business would be divided equally between the parties.

Plaintiff claims that this debt should be Defendant’s debt alone since he controlled the finances and she had little input on what happened with the money gained from the sale. The court disagrees and finds that she cannot enjoy the fruits of the marital business decisions for 17 years and then disavow herself the debt that comes from those same business decisions.

DIVORCE 73: Plaintiff filed a complaint for separate maintenance once husband was disabled.

The trial court agreed that third-party intervention in domestic-relations matters was only permitted in limited circumstances that did not apply to DHHS, and denied DHHS’s motion for reconsideration.